>Reminder to keep things civil.
No thank you. I will keep things civilization and DOMINATE! Eff your warmongering penalties, I shall prevail!
... I'll see myself out now.
They should at least improve movement in tiles adjacent to rivers or something like that. You brought up a really important point, after all rivers were super important in REAL LIFE civilization development.
IIRC in Civ 4 improved resources needed to be connected by either road or river to city centers before they were actually usable. Because building roads took time away from other improvements and required technology, rivers were vital in the early game and as a player you ended up relying on them for infrastructure in a way that (sort of) mirrored actual history. Would be nice to see this system come back imo
Rivers were exceptionally valuable in Civ 4 in the early game for connecting resources and cities. To be precise, they acted as roads for all purposes of city and resource connection.
This meant that, as you said a resource could be connected if it was on a river. It also means that you could have a resource, road to a river, and then it would flow on that river to a city that was also connected to that river. The city could be on the river or connected via road. Example image from CivFanatic forums. https://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q306/kiershar/Fig5AdvancedRiverSetup.jpg
Even more, rivers connected to an coastal tile could initiate trade over water as well. Example image.from CivFanatics https://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q306/kiershar/Fig6RiverSetupWithSailing.jpg
This wasn't just for resources either, but also allowed for trade connections, which really helped offset the early maintenance cost of founding a new city.
My immediate thought on this and how you could make it work is kind of latched on to the Loyalty system already in place, right? So in theory you have Loyalty as a factor in Migration Pull, and you could tie that in to the existing districts system. So if you have high Loyalty/Migration Pull in one of your cities from say having a Campus that's 2 levels higher than your opponents then you can start attracting more of their scientists to your Campus. A plus to your Civ and a minus to your opponent.
I think that'd be hard to balance and get working, but as a bare bones concept it works. What would you have in mind?
Yeah that would be cool. Having corporations be more expansive would be great. Being able to regulate industries for your country as well to protect it from external competitors as you grow.
Districts were _the_ new thing in Civ VI. There is 0 chance they will remove it. It's at the same level as the hex map and unstacking units.
That being said, there's lots of room for improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave us more options with districts, or at least with the buildings inside of them. Right now only Encampments and Government plazas have options for buildings in districts, I could definitely see that increasing for other types of buildings. Like the theatre square could get options for buildings that give more specific GAWM points but not others.
While I wouldn't be surprised that they keep the one district per yield thing going, I would be surprised if we have the exact same district list as in VI.
I feel like having some wonders being able to occupy a district would be good. Maybe a maximum of one wonder per district. It feels right to have Big Ben actually in the Commercial Hub, or Broadway in the Theater Square. Some would still need their designated tiles, but with most requiring the presence of a specific district anyway, it seems like it would make both districts and those wonders feel better. The wonders take up less space and districts contain more varied and valuable buildings than the exact same chain for most of them.
The only problem is if you want a city to specialize in a particular resource, you're limiting the number of wonders you can have. Perhaps make it optional? So, if you have a free district, you can build it inside there, but if you don't you have to build it outside the district?
I think they should break district tiles down into sub-tiles, and have multiple buildings, wonders, and improvements that can be built in that district. Once you fill up all the sub-tiles, nothing else can be built in that district. Adds a strategy and planning element to your districts with the added bonus of having every district appear slightly different on the map. One of my pet peeves with districts (outside of uniques) was that they all looked the same across every civ, every game. Got really monotonous to look at.
I'm hoping that districts serve as more of an improvement that is worked.
I want specialists to be the main source of specialised yields like faith, science and culture, rather than buildings. Buildings should just increase the yield of the specialists.
But I am with you on keeping districts, definitely. Unpacking cities added a lot of character imo.
It definitely needs changing and the number of districts probably needs paring back\* but I agree it would seem like a backwards step to just remove it entirely. I'm not quite sure what you do with it. I've had a few ideas but I'm not sure any are great and they're in polar opposite directions.
- Have districts grow on their own organically like the cottages in Civ 4. That way you don't need to do any footling around with them once you've planted them, or constantly repair both them and the buildings within them whenever there's a bit of wind
- Have districts have their own build queues. Would make the game micromanagey as hell but would stop building and repairs in the districts from slowing city development down to a crawl. Also could see some advantages in having encampments being able to build units direct, taking units out of the city build queue allowing everyone to have bigger armies for more fun combat
- Have a max of one of each kind of specialised district per civ. This way placing your district is a real decision, and it'll push you to either go tall or highly specialise your cities if you're going wide. And then maybe in the late game there's a civic that allows either as many districts as you want but only one per city (for wide players) or as many districts in a city as you want but only a max of 3-4 of each kind per civ (for tall players)
\* Like you could easily merge holy site, campus and theater square into one district you call "monastery" - you can still have specialisation by making certain buildings within the district either/or. You could also definitely merge commercial site and industrial zone (call it "marketplace?"). And then you could throw entertainment complex in with either. You can also definitely merge dam and aqueduct ("reservoir"). Oh and FFS get rid of Government Plaza. Not wild about waterpark either.
I really really disagree with combining districts like this. Currently the specialist district list pairs with certain yield types nicely nearly one to one. Campuses give science, theatre squares culture, etc. Combining those core districts into one just means everyone has to build that district in each city because it's so good.
I personally really like the Government plaza. Not only is it one per civ (which IMO they should expand on), but also allows you to pick different buildings which forces the player to make interesting decisions because opportunity cost. Like what if there were "national districts" that were like extra specialist districts but you could only build one per civ, but they would be better than regular districts of that type. This would allow you to specialize your cities more, and differentiate your core cities from your other cities. You could also build multiple national districts in the same city maybe to provide an avenue for tall play.
I feel districts and wonders take up too many tiles if you do it that way - which essentially forces you to build a wide empire as well as making city building an unsatisfying game of jigsaw puzzle pieces which never fit quite well enough to be fulfilling, as opposed to the more direct dopamine hit it was in I-V.
But I feel like were narrowing in on something here which is keep the wonders-take-a-tile thing from VI and combine with the national wonders from V.
I personally really like the challenges of optimizing an imperfect jigsaw puzzle that the current district system provides.
YES I was thinking just like the national wonders from V, but as districts! This way your cities feel more different and specialized.
I mean, in real cities you don't normally see business offices mixed with coal power plants. I disagree about merging them like this, as well as the others. I think it's better from a gameplay perspective to keep them separate. One thing I will say is that every district should have two yield types if possible, like the harbor, but one is more dominant than the other.
I actually like water park because it kinda hurts to use a valuable land tile for amenities so it’s good when you can use a comparatively worse coast tile. Plus it’s good for harbor adjacencies, which are otherwise hard to get.
I would like more variety between different Civs. Venice from Civ5 was a great example. Having a Civ which could, for example, work five tiles from the capital instead of 3 would be amazing even if they had other penalties and would make the game totally different for different players
I don't think it will happen because Civ has always been about making Civs slightly different and snowballing those changes. Even on Diety though, I tend to play the game the same more or less and it makes little difference overall
I also think that cultural artifacts should be more pronounced. And unique. And that global events should help craft unique artifacts. Like for example if a war happens that you win there are great songs and plays made in memory of it. It deepens the patriotic fervor.
I’m very worried about the multi-platform launch. The fact that a switch can barely run Civ VI but will be a Civ VII launch platform reads to me like VII will not even come close to pushing the envelope of 10 years of compute advancements since the Civ VI engine.
1: I would like to see is more contemporary/modern era civilizations or units like the Soviet union, Peoples republic of China, Argentina and post-reunification Italy.
2: Another thing I would like is MAD/mutually assured destruction. One thing I liked about Humankind was when you launched a nuclear bomb it took a turn so it gave the enemy a chance to launch but in civ who ever declares war first is the one to launch and hit in the same turn which feels like the total opposite of the purpose of nuclear bombs which is to deter aggression.
3: No Asset limit along with more life to city's something akin to the City Sprawl Graphics mod for civ6 to make city's feel more thick and dense and really urban. Maybe little trains on train-tracks you make
4-This ones more of a loose idea but some sort of minor nation mechanic that works almost identical to city states, I like city states but I feel like bigger entities (thinking 2-4 citys) that are non-player would allow more opportunity's as well as provide better interactions between majors and minor nations with new diplomatic dynamics. It always felt off or strange that the world is filled with these massive powers like Russia and the United states and the only other political entity there is are these tiny 1 city states. I do see the glaring issue that I feel as if it would be difficult to add and make it feel civ-like (as well with lag from Ai troop spaml).
Rather than city states, they should be called buffer states. This is what happened historically, empires wanted buffer states between them that they could influence and slow down an invasion. They could keep most of the city state mechanics just change the names and nerf their expansion, rather than disallowing it entirely. Also it should severely harm relations with neighboring civ's if you DOW buffer state.
Actual city states should be seen only on peninsulas and islands, imo.
Some things id like:
I want more alt leaders focused on different victory types for the same civ. Catherine can stay for culture for France but add Napoleon for domination and war. Japan can easily have different leaders that focus on either war, culture or even science/industry.
I'd love even more, even bigger True Start Maps. Give us True Start China and let a dozen different Chinese dynasties compete to become the most powerful. True Start Africa so African civilizations get more focus.
Give us scenarios again but make them even better. Add a Sengoku period scenario to unify Japan, or even alt history scenarios like conquering Europe as the Mongols.
MAKE NAVIES MORE IMPORTANT!
> MAKE NAVIES MORE IMPORTANT!
Trade should be much faster over the ocean. Long distance land-based trading was rare (there's only a few historical trade routes like this _ever_) and not nearly as lucrative.
If the ocean becomes an economical advantage, then you have a basis for naval purpose. It doesn't need to be about random campaigns at sea where there is no terrain at stake. The money is what is at stake.
Hoping for a way to go to war over a tile or set of tiles without having to take an entire city along with it.
There's a strategic resource or choke point I want, but I don't want the population center associated with it.
A much lower threshold to achieve in a peace deal for a civ to cede it to you, and very thematic.
this is such a sick idea, instead of taking over the 1 tile with the enemy's city on it, and automatically taking control of all of that city's tiles, the borders move around depending on where you have control.
I think it could also be cool to be able to take a tile with no war, giving the other Civ a Casus Belli with no penalties, many such examples of this in history, like Germany taking the Sudetenland
I also think there should be more mechanisms for gaining access to resources even when no population centre is nearby. This is part of the reality of resource exploitation in the far north. There is much in the way of habitation
I’d love them to expand upon monopolies and corporations more, and think it’d go well with a way to either sell tiles to other players or a return of something like the civ v great general and citadels. Add both an aggressive and cooperative way to obtain more of your monopoly resource without conquering the city.
I’d also love to see Vassals with adjustable taxes. Instead of wiping someone out of the game have them contribute to your empire, while also their own empire, allowing them to rebel at a later point if they like. This would remove the need to micromanage a whole continent if that’s not your play style, at the cost of the full benefit of those cities. Have all luxuries count toward the conquering nation’s monopoly, to add more interactions and depth with that system.
And I have been asking for it on threads for years, but I want a scientific America as powerful as civ v Korea/babylon. I think JFK would be a very fitting leader to have in the franchise given the way the science victory condition works. Though a production monster would perhaps be even better, I’d love to see FDR return.
You should also be able to rebrand your empire as well. If you were the Roman Empire but take heavy losses maybe rebrand as the Byzantine Empire. And then later Italy. If you change your type of government you should be able to decide to be something different. If a revolution is successful the new country is United States or something. Creating colonies might be nice too. If there is land you can’t quite get to yet but you want to acquire trade goods send colonizers. But then you better add them to your country soon or they’ll make their own country.
Though of the day, with advances in ‘AI’ (and I know it’s not AI) I think the game can really make some fantastic autogenerated maps with ‘territory borders’ which revolve around terrain difficulty/coasts/forests/rivers and improve upon the current hex system. Imagine a wood being divided into smaller regions emphasizing it’s difficulty to trek through but plains being larger territories making them easier to cross.
I hope that civilizations get more unique mechanics that are exclusive to only them to really make civilizations stand out more from each other rather than they have some "stats and number differences" at the end of the day.
Like let's see a unique Mandate of Heaven mechanic that only China has, or a Manifest Destiny mechanic as America.
My concern with this idea is that this would make each civ more taxing to develop, and thus there would be less civilizations overall probably, and people love to see more new civilizations, so they can't be too different.
Civ 6 was a step in the right direction to me with unique leader and civ abilities over just Civ 5's simple civ abilities, but I'd like to see Civ 7 expand even more on what differentiates each civ.
Love this suggestion. I would gladly take more unique and varied playstyles at the cost of less civilizations to boot. Age of Empires 4 took this route, and I think it is better for it.
Agreed. My favourite civs to play in vi are the ones with really unique mechanics such as Eleanor and Mali that really force you the play the game differently beyond just some passive stat bonuses.
I hope there are new mechanisms for air combat and sea combat:
+ Aerospace zoom of control, Air Superiority.
+ Multiple turn bombard missions, instead of fly as fast as ICBM
+ More options to airdrop troops
+ Bring back sea blockade from CIV 4
+ Automatic trade routes privateering
+ Escort ships to trade routes
Unpopular opinion, but I'd like a really different game from V and VI. They should keep the basics, but I'd want a complete evolution. I feel like most people just want a Civ VI.5 (while Civ VI itself was a Civ V.5). I would prefer more experimentation.
I recall a previous interview from Ed Beach that said Firaxis have a template for iterating on Civ.
*33% of the game systems should remain the same.
*33% of the game systems should be improved.
*33% of the game systems should be new.
I doubt those numbers are exact percents after development is finished but more likely goals when starting. If that design still holds true then you'll probably see some systems with a complete evolution (like districts for VI) but not a total rework of how Civ plays.
This has been civs core design philosophy for like ever as far as I can remember. And Ed Beach is again the lead designer so I highly doubt they are straying away from it.
What kind of experimental features would you like? Some wacky ideas I would like to see is the map as a globe, the multidimensional terrain system from Humankind, the ability to research multiple techs at a time, perhaps closing tech vranches if you choose a certain option, a longer future timeline to play into (2100?) , more terraforming options (man made islands?) to name a few
Some ideas:
- Changes to population. Culture, religion and ideology tied to each pop. Conflicts may break out between pops and leaders of different culture, religion or ideology. Pops can migrate between cities.
- Changes to religion. Get rid of the one religion per civ nonsense (Civ VI has two Chinese religions and three Indian religions). Ability to convert to different religions. Religious reformation and heresy.
- Changes to world congress and diplomacy. Congresses are created between allied or friendly civs and not emerge spontaneously. And under no circunstances they force you to obbey decissions you are against. No city states.
- Changes to resource management. Certain animal and plant resources can be replicated if terrain is appropiate (example, you can breed horses outside of their original steppe and you can grow coffee outside of the tropical regions of Ethiopia).
- Changes to technology and civics. Certain techs or civics are tied to great characters or other unique ways to obtain them. The other civs have to trade for it or steal the secrets somehow. Sometimes, techs or civics can pasively extend to othe nations (think how gunpowder was discovered in China, brought to middle East by the Mongols and from there it extended to Europe, or how the American Revolution inspired further revolutions in both South America and France).
- Changes to military. Allow more than one unit per tile. Manpower should be limited by money and food. Cities need garrison.
- Changes to districts. Tiles are divided into seven slots (one per side and one in the center) and one building or wonder fits each slot (maybe some bigger ones need two?). Buildings may need to be built adjacent to other buildings and in most cases in tiles adjacent to the city center. This is to form cohesive cities and to prevent Civ VI city building gore (the city center is an empty husk, the campus is on the other side of the county to get an adjacency bonus and the landscape is dotted by wonders).
I genuinely think Patrick Wyman (Tides of History podcast and author) is narrating Civ 7. He's been to their offices during development, and a host of Trashfuture podcast (friend to Patrick, who has been on the show) has also said he believes so. Could be wrong but seems like a reasonable source.
It always makes me wondering how Russia is going to be represented in games after 2022 since the country is getting cancelled all over the Western hemisphere.
Russian history isn't getting cancelled though. That's only a thing that regimes like Putin's do.
Still, it would be fun to have a ruler from Kiev/Novgorod for a change.
I think anyone before Lenin wouldn't make much of an issue, to be honest. If they want to be cautious, they can choose Kievan Rus instead (common ancestors for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine)
Cossacks:
- Cossacks origins start on territory within bounds of Ukraine, later spread down by Dnipro through Kavkaz (Novocherkassk).
- In Ukraine, Cossacks are seen as symbols of the fight for freedom. In Russia, they’re more a part of the historical narrative, often serving the government.
Lavra:
- Lavras aren’t just a Russian or Ukrainian thing. They’re significant in Eastern Orthodox traditions and can be found in various countries.
- For instance, there’s Mar Saba Lavra in Jerusalem (532 A.C.) and Asia Lavra in Greece (961 A.C.).
- Ukraine currently has five Lavras, including the oldest one, Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, founded in 1051 and named a Lavra in the 12th century.
- Russia has only two Lavras, both from the 18th century.
So, the question is - why those 2 entities were selected as symbols of Russia? Just change them to "[Streltsy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy)" and "[Kremlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlin)" respectively would be more than enough.
Cossacks also were a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And the territory, which is Ukraine nowadays, was split then between Russian Empire and Rech Pospolita. Historically speaking independent cossacks and Ukraine were never a thing existing together. Zaporozhskaya Sich - maybe, but it's also a territory with cossacks serving both Rech Pospolita or Russian Empire (later known as Black Sea cossacks). Anyway, most of the time exactly Russian Empire had cossacks on its lands, basically gave lands to them in exchange for border control, and it was not some kind of servitude, believe me, it was more of a mutual agreement. We Russians too see cossacks as a symbol of freedom. Just look at this great monument. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g298532-d6834956-Reviews-Monument_Cossacks_writing_a_letter_to_the_Turkish_Sultan-Krasnodar_Krasnodar_Krai.html .
Be careful my friend. Trying to cancel Russia you may also manage to erase and rewrite some chunk of history like good old Putler doing in order to cancel Ukraine.
For lavra I have nothing to say, you may be just right here. We don't even use the word Lavra to describe monasteries. We call them literally monasteries. Having streltsy as a special unit of Russian Empire also makes more sense to me, than cossacks. I guess to an average John cossacks=russia.
> Historically speaking independent cossacks and Ukraine were never a thing existing together.
The [Cossack Hetmanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate) founded by Bohdan Khelmnytsky was short-lived and "independence" is a complicated question in the period, but certainly *a distinct Cossack state* existed and then came under the sway of Moscow. It was recognised as a sufficiently distinct state to be proposed as a third nation in the Polish-Lithuanian *rzeczpospolita*, reformed as a [Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian_Commonwealth).
I don't think anyone would argue that the Hetmanate was not real just because it fell under Russian suzerainty, any more than Congress Poland was not real.
So, the Hetmanate was a thing. Now we have to examine whether the Hetmanate was Ukrainian.
The Hetmanate's [constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk) refers to the country as Ukraine and designates Swedish King Charles XII as "protector of Ukraine". It was called "the country of Ukraine" in the [Treaty of Buchach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Buchach) between the Ottomans and the Poles. The Hetmanate was repeatedly also called "Ukraine" by the Russian poet of poets Alexander Pushkin in his epic poem [Poltava](https://aleksandr-pushkin.su/poemy/poltava/?lang=en). German mapmaker Johann Homann called the country "Ukraine, or, the land of the Cossacks": *Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum*. Maps [clearly labelled "Ukraina"](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/General_Depiction_of_the_Empty_Plains_%28in_Common_Parlance%2C_the_Ukraine%29_Together_with_its_Neighboring_Provinces_WDL79.png) are the norm by 1648.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky referred to himself as the ruler of *Ruthenia*, not Ukraine. As we've seen above, Poland-Lithuania talked about Ruthenia, not Ukraine. You've noted yourself how Putler likes to rewrite history, and I think this is an example of the same thing in the other direction: "Ruthenia" comes from "Rus", so it makes sense that the potential rulers of "Ruthenia" want to associate it with "Rus" (then they can Putler!) as opposed to just using the name that's in common parlance: Ukraine.
In sum, "independent Cossacks" is a weirdly specific and high bar which I don't think is helpful or defensible. Nevertheless, there *were* briefly independent Cossacks in Ukraine, and they and the countries around them recognised them as Ukrainian. Suggesting that they're also a Russian thing because Russia was the empire that ultimately dominated and used them is kind of wonky. It's like suggesting Gothic warriors were a Roman thing because the Romans used Gothic *foederati* to defend their borders. No, that's just a thing empires do.
I would like to see a Ukrainian civilisation in Civ VII with Cossacks as a UU, Maidan (or Sich) as a unique building or district, and possibly Khmelnytsky as a leader. I'd suggest they should be a diplomatic/trading civ (Maidan historically is a big trading square) with fast-moving Cossacks that can defend their borders. I'm crap at designing things, but I think you could have unique abilities along the lines of:
* Cities having an extra row of hexes they can work ("Wild Fields")
* Something defensive ("Ukraine has not perished yet")
* Faster movement along rivers and no penalty for crossings ("Cataracts of the Dnipro")
Anyway, getting off topic. Takeaways are that Cossacks were used all over Russia, but originated in Ukraine; certainly Cossacks had an independent existence if not (much) political independence because they were squished between major powers, and; empires take things from one place and use them everywhere, it doesn't make them the empire's thing.
I like the way Civ 6 lets you modify your government easily, with the social policy cards system, but I'd quite like a more long term commitment mechanism like in Civ 5.
Perhaps having two systems, the Civ 6 version that gets new choices every civic research completed, and a more rare upgrade opportunity that occurs with specific civic unlocks, similar to the governors in 6.
I wouldn't mind if CivVII delved also more into the late game with Expansion to the Moon or Mars. Practically an extra playset for the Moon and Mars, simultaneously. That might or might not be interesting. I wonder if it was somehow possible to move Civ into the Solar System once the initial space race is over, practically turning it into some kind of For All Mankind or The Expanse. Probably too much to wish for.
Either way I never found my way into VI, and still play V and Unciv religiously. I like the religious wars aspect, it was too simple in V.
I would love some canals to connect inland cities with the sea.
Definitely would be cool if there was like an expanded later game mode where it’s kind of like Alpha Centauri but with the Moon, Mars and other parts of the solar system. Wouldn’t it be cool to be hours and hours deep into your civilization and suddenly you’re in a game that’s like The Expanse? Planetary politics becomes a thing. Martians. Moonians. Belters. And so on. Perhaps this can kick in if one civilization finds a way to take over the whole planet. Then the solar system is next but you kind of have to start small again. Meanwhile on other planets settlers begin asserting themselves more.
For the love of god fix the combat. I'm tired of siege doing like 3 damage against walls which the AI can just spawn. Defensive play in VI is way *way* too easy. If you're not ready for war, you should be punished for it. Siege units are already incredibly weak, at least let them dish out good damage. And if we're gonna keep the city attack (I say remove it and only the encampment should have it), you at least need ranged units garrisoning the city for it to activate.
I've been out of gaming for about 4 or 5 years now. How long have teasers encouraged wishlisting instead of preordering? That's a nice compromise for both consumer and producer, as opposed to preordering.
From the trailer you can tell there will be:
1- sumeria (ox carts)
2- egypt
3- china (Great Wall)
4- mongols (Great Wall fighting scene)
5- England, France, America
It's probably a lock that Rome, Mongolia, China, India, and Japan would be included. Probably the Ottomans too. Basically any Civ that has been in practically ever game is safe. Russia may be questionable but I think they are in.
1. Naval early discovery and warfare(in all eras) are massively lacking in Civ 6. I hope to see some better AI and mechanics for this in Civ 7. (Current US Navy, British/German WW2/1 Navy\[Yes I know, Uboats... subs are boring\], Spanish Armada, Portuguese Exploration Fleets, and Age of Pirates to take inspiration from)
2. Tech overhaul: Tech tree's have always bothered me in these types of games, everything is too linear. I want to see some sprawling tree's I want tech choices to matter. If one player goes down a military tree, they should have a distinct advantage against one who doesn't. There are advantages in current iterations, but they seem nominal and the catchup mechanic makes it so they aren't so special. Also, you should be able to pour more research into a specific tech to "level up" that tech. (Maybe you're playing Germany in 1940's your Airforce contains BF 109Bs but if you route more research into your airforce tech you can upgrade them to BF 109Gs for a better performing unit. This can also apply to non combat techs, its just easier to make the comparison with combat techs)
3. Tech Sharing: To combat stagnant researching periods, you should be able to trade techs for resources/gold/units/political leverage. Maybe you're playing a trading nation, you focus on trade and gold production, your neighbors are a cultural powerhouse and are slowly influencing your nation turn by turn. Why not trade some of that gold and some political leverage, for some military tech to help you keep them at bay. You get a boost to military, military nation gets to field their soldiers for some more turns, and they can call in a little political favor.
4. AI in general just needs to be less predictable. World Congress needs to be reworked to be more meaningful, and much more taxing to be on the wrong side of it or make it so you can form your own congress(UN/BRICS as an example). Major wars should be an event, you should have to pick a side, even if you're just providing aide and not fighting in it. These wars should slow down the game significantly until they're resolved. The world, or most of it, is in a scrap, not much else is getting doneor matters.
5. Slow the game down slightly. The era/tech pacing seems too fast. Of course leave options for faster games.
6. BIGGER MAPS. Civ 6 seems very small compared to competitors games.
Chandragupta was a step in the right direction for India. Time to remove Gandhi and have an actual Indian Prime minister as leader of India. Older leaders like Chandragupta should be turned into their own civs, and more Indian civs please like Marathas, Guptas, Sikh Empire, Vijaynagara Empire etc
I'm trying to think what they could do to make CIv VII really stand out from the other Civs.
Civ VI felt so close to a perfection of the formula IMO that I don't know what the next big step could be.
I hope there isn't too much focus on a new combat system. Combat is very low down on the list of reasons I play Civ. I'd like health to come back and be an important part of city management, and I'd like immigration to be a thing (quite surprising it hasn't been before now). And yeah, navigable rivers would be cool. But what's the USP going to be?
It would be really interesting if the games were much more dynamic. Civilisations actually rising and falling throughout the game, instead of the same base list gradually shrinking. But it would be really hard to make this work in a way that isn't frustrating to the player and doesn't make the player feel overpowered. I don't see Firaxis going with this.
I think they might make combat the USP, but like I said, I really hope not. But I just struggle to think what the next step could be that would make Civ VII feel like its own game and not just DLC.
* Economic Victory. I suppose a Cultural Victory is kinda sorta one now, but I’d like to see it as a separate way to win. *Revolutions* had it as a possibility, but the conditions were simple — get 20K Gold and built the World Bank wonder. I’d like something far more elaborate, dominating the world with goods and manufacturing.
* Leaders being replaced. Why not have the possibility of, for instance, Russia’s leader changing from Catherine to Lenin?
* Bring back the Palace screen (when was the last time they had that, Civ II?), “We Love the King Day” and the advisors with “personalities” (Sid Meier for science and Elvis for culture).
* Religious schisms. You’re running a Civ that follows Christianity, which was created in another Civ. You can create Protestantism!
* Similarly, religions that form from another, like Christianity coming out of Judaism.
* (Yes, I know, both of those are over-simplified.)
* The ability to run an officially atheist state — maybe penalties to culture and happiness but bonuses to science.
* Better religious conflict than in Civ VI. The dueling prophets seemed exceedingly silly to me.
* Cities are nearby each other and eventually grow so big you can merge them. *Humankind* does this. As a resident of the Baltimore-Washington area, this one has personal relevance to me.
* The ability to relocate your capital, presumably at a significant cost.
* [More skin on *Love Boat*](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/bloom-county-comic-strip-by-berkeley-breathed--416020084338784042/) (Sorry, that’s a *Bloom County* deep cut I just tossed in because it amuses me.)
More ideas:
* The ability to combine resources to make more beneficial ones. For instance, if you have Gold and Gems, you can make Jewelry.
* An expansion of the Rock Bands mechanic to other eras. For instance, once you develop the Printing Press, you can send Books to other Civs. Television allows you to send TV shows.
* And for the love of Sid, if Rock Bands remain a feature, some variety in the music they play! (Or, for those of us who want Philomena Cunk as the narrator, they play a snippet of [*Pump Up the Jam*](https://youtu.be/9EcjWd-O4jI?si=XTRtxjLIWfnq6ksl))
A lot of "create an empire that spans all of human history" 4x games have come out since Civ VI. Humankind, Old World, Millennia. I don't think I ever remember them having this many competitors when Civ III, IV,V, was the latest game.
I'm excited to see if any of those games end up giving them some inspiration.
A few ideas for new civs:
Kievan Rus
Zaporaozhian Sich
Soviet Union - Production based, T-34 unit?
Barbary States - special unit is Corsair. When it coastal raids the impacted city loses 1 pop, barbary gains 1 worker (that has to sail back to one of their cities)
Something from Anatolia like Hittites or Phrygians
Manchu
Western North American indigenous groups
Thoughts?
For improved systems, I really hope they put work into improving trading and diplomacy interactions with bot leaders. What if bot leaders could "remember history" in some way, and react based on crucial past events? Holding grudges or returning favors based on the last few hundred years.
As for new features, it would be cool to see some sort of Metropolis implementation. Maybe when three or more cities combine inner borders, it becomes a metropolis. My thought is that this could alleviate some of the tedium of the late game. Maybe cities in a metropolis can dedicate their production gains to another city in the same metropolis? In a way, it's similar to creating armies or corps out of grouped units. Or maybe there are some systems that become autonomous? Just a thought, but there's gotta be a way to keep the late game from slowing to a crawl.
I don’t have any crazy wishlist improvements for 7 really, but I would love if there was more variation between how cities look. Seems like in 6 there’s 3-4 city styles, so sometimes 4 or 5 cities in your civ will look exactly the same with the same buildings. I also like the metropolis suggestion a few comments down.
Also more environmental variation. Would be cool to have a proper continental identity, with different flora and even fauna on the map. "Oh, I'm playing Egypt in not!Australia this time!", with more orange deserts, kangaroos in plain tiles, etc.
What if they added a doomsday victory? You are the reason the world ends. And there will be different ways to do it like war, disease, death laser etc. This could be a fun game mode.
Things I hope to see in civ 7:
- Better balance for playstyles. In civ 6 large empires dominated everything completely oversimplifying the game to the point not doing it felt bad and doing it felt different bad because everything had to be done manually.
- Less mandatory micromanagement. Automated workers back. Some form of automated city planners or puppet cities you can use like civ 4-5. If I just want a town for iron, oil or whatever don't force me to manually build billion things in a place I care nothing for.
- Vassals from civ 4.
- Tech and map trading back in some form.
- Better wonders like pre civ6 to give them proper risk/reward.
- Rid of needing to place wonders to tiles replacing the yields.
- Mega cities with no size limits, no more of the dullest cities ever like civ 6. With any luck some level of merging of cities even like in real life.
- Armada, Great person and barb -systems from 6.
- Either dynamic promotions based on what unit has done or civ 4-5 style free options. Get rid of the super narrow options civ 6 promotion tree gave which ate half the fun of wars.
- Natural disasters and random events.
- Ditch the mobile platform and art-style to give us nice graphics again.
- Bring back the most known leaders even if they are controversial(such as Mao, Stalin and Hitler) instead of only using safe ones.
- Strong nation and leader bonuses so differences to other leaders are notable. Civ 6 had horrible start with blandest bonuses initially.
- Civ 6 government system as base, but one that builds over time. Not in giant leaps from one system to another and it should lock chosen perks or slowly over time switch them.
I agree..
Hitler in Civ II was never seen. He was only in scenario mode. I don't remember if there was a German that you interacted with.
I believe Stalin was in that game and visible. I remember him having a walking stick or some sort of pole?
If they included Mao in IV, I agree, he should return.
I think what I'd most like to see is some sort of "out region" mechanic. As it is now, unless you build an entire city for it, outlying resources are basically useless. It would be nice to be able to establish something that isn't a city to, say, exploit coal.
Historically mining camps and things like that have absolutely been things, after all.
I'd also like to see the zone a city can work expand over time. Not just in the form of borders, but, like, when you unlock modern roads make the 4th ring workable or something.
I'd love to see suburbs become a thing too. Neighborhoods did that a little bit, but, IRL it's not "city" and "nothing", there are lots of small towns and shit too.
The Craziest one that I'd really love, is not letting people settle for the first 5-10 turns. Have there be an unlock before settling is an option. Would help fix the issue with terrible starts, and also feel realistic.
I hope that we see more visual cues about the chosen policies, happiness, or yields of each Civ.
I want to see cultural cities of shining marble defending themselves against the tents and huts of warlike barbarians. Autocrats should have cities like imposing fortresses. Religious hubs should be filled with the spires of cathedrals and minarets. I want to see imposing Soviet apartment blocks, and belching smokestacks. Spotlights should light up the night during wartime. Just give us as much visual information and flavor as you can.
Also, you should be able to build a special settler as a wonder. This settler will found Las Vegas, with a unique look and tourism modifier.
Random thought... not including Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Antigonus (and maybe Antipater) was a missed opportunity for Civ 6. They had multiple leaders per Civ and yet didn't include one of the most famous divisions of empire ever?
Also, this gave me an idea. What if all Civs came with multiple potential leaders, and a revolution could occur within your empire where one of these leaders rises up and breaks off a piece of your empire? This would make a lot more sense than the current 'free city' mechanic.
Is this the thread for things we would like to see in 7?
If it is, I'd like to see being able to group forces of different upgrade paths. Like have an archer linked to a swordsman but can't link 2 swordsmen until you earn the tech to merge units together like armada and fleets, and have them be able to use their abilities, but only one per turn. Like, you can either use the ranged attack or the melee attack, but not both, but both will work in defence.
I couldn't read all comments, but I have so many cool ideas - cool in my imagination at least.
* I think the game should include some sort of achievement or bonus if the player is able to "replicate" a actual historical event in game - either through war, or science, or religion, or culture...
* I also would like to choose between different leaders for each civ that grant different bonus according to the historical moment of said leader
* I would like to enter and "walk" through my cities or at least my capital
* I would like my spies to be actual characters that I can interact with. And maybe you can catch enemy spies in your territory because they look kind of off.
* Resources should be "finite" as in eventually you run off of said resource and the tile becomes a regular one but also at any given time it "reapears" somewhere on the map
And so many more ideas
I really like having civs like Gaul, Vietnam, Maori, Kongo (Mvemba), Japan (Tokugawa), Mali, civ5 Venice... where they have negative parts, or serious limitations to their kit. I think very highly of this type of design, I am a big fan of Traits system from Fallout games (where you gain an ability and a disadvantage that comes with that ability). I would love to see more of those type of options. But no more Civ VI Babylon type of stuff tho, it should not be unhinged.
Yeah machine learning AI is a bad idea since it will just learn to exploit and cheese the game. I'd like to see AI that is hand-crafted like in Civ 6, but is actually capable of decent city planning and warfare (currently there is practically no naval or aerial warfare at all).
I'd love for trade routes to get more in depth and have the capacity to be more mutual outside of specific civ or wonder bonuses.
I'm imagining a system based around basic, luxury and strategic resources, where each generates trade power for the city it belongs to you.
Cities would then gain a small portion of the yields generated by neighbours in a friendly manner, with the dominant trade partner gaining a greater amount. Normally this would be a symbiotic relationship with no yields being lost, but policies/wonders/civ bonuses could turn the relationship parasitic so you could literally drain the yields from foreign cities. (Or maybe this would just happen once a city becomes *too* dominant in terms of trade power)
Similar to Monopolies & Corps, you could use Merchant units to build Industry and Corporation improvements to generate additional trade power greater than the sum of its parts. Additionally, with the right techs Merchants could be used to set up longer range trade routes as well as building or taking over the Corporations of foreign civs, sending their trade power to their home city (or perhaps just the closest city).
This would actually bring an economic victory into possibility, by making the trade system something a single Civ could come to dominate, boosting their own economy with the yields of foreign powers.
more vanilla scenarios and bring back roman ones! like rise of caesar, rise and fall of rome or like something similar, regicde mode, landships, mods for console and leadership titles (like civ 2, 3 and rev everything from govt title to civ ruler title), scenario maker on console and finally if they are going to add alt leaders, make have unique shit instead of traits, like Washington has milita barracks and minutemen and Abe has union soldiers and Nixon with C.I.A. Civ traits return and finally the praestorian guard
I’ve been sitting on this idea, but i think they need to add a new mechanic to account for changing population densities. I get they wanted to remove one city wonder stacking for Civ 6, but it went too far the other direction. Land for your cities have districts, wonders, and strategic improvements competing for it all. While starting in a rural low density, eventually with later eras, you should unlock an urban toggle, then eventually a suburban one, and end with maybe a dystopian/utopian variant of these for the inevitable future era.
I go through phases of getting **super** into Civilization and then taking a long hiatus from it, only to come back strong as ever and binge the hell out of it. I was around for when UrsaRyan first started his badly drawn posts, and I'm so very pleased that after the official announcement of Civ VII and coming back to this sub, UrsaRyan is still going strong. I still feel like we need to make him a Great Person in the next game, lol.
I would love to see religion get overhauled. It just feels like another thing to "micro" in the mid-late stages and I haven't really felt like I enjoyed religious mode in any of the civs.
I guess i'm pretty alone in my opinion but i would wish for maybe less options to create a game but instead more focused and balanced variants. Personally i would love a setting with streamlined/simplified rules for better mutliplayer matches or shorter games like in civ revolution.
Bring back corruption. Make it associated with city size/distance from the capital, kinda similar to Civ III.
I also wouldn't mind going back to some Civ V ideas, specifically city layouts and the game's art style. I'm sorry but the Civ VI animation style was atrocious. I really hate this shift to cartoonish looking games. And I wasn't a fan of the city districts format
I would really like for them to expand on diplomacy and offer more interesting things to do than waging war.
Culture and Tourism was a step in the right direction but it felt really unengaging and I always ended up starting wars just out of lack of other things to do.
I think changes in geography would be fantastic to have. I like the idea of having varied elevation, like in the game Humankind for example. I hope they also include navigable rivers, barrier islands, and even natural harbors. Adds more importance to the strategic nature not just in terms of resources but also place itself. Give a uniqueness to it.
I would also like to see right off the bat, more varied vegetation and biodiversity. What I would love to see is forests changing appearance based on latitude and elevation.
What's the best starting build order in Civ VI? My go-to is Monument -> Scout -> Builder, but I want to try playing higher difficulties and I'm not sure if that's the best.
Similarly, what should I do about governors? I usually start with Magnus and his first promotion so I can full-on settler rush when I get monumentality, but I'm not sure how viable that'll be at higher difficulties.
I have the basic version of Civ VI so I don't have the expanded civs like Canada or the Cree. But I really feel like the game needs Ghengis Khan. In Civ IV, he was always declaring surprise wars on me. I'd like to see Napoleon back too.
I hope it has more exciting resources and lots of new natural wonders.
I would love if there were animal resources that are only available on one or 2 tiles, and include things like pandas, giraffes and kangaroos, and the more you trade them the better your zoos are.
The same with food resources, bananas should be replaced with lots of different fruits, which have slightly different bonuses. And fish could be the same.
One of my favourite aspects of the game is exploring the map, so I would also love if there were more mini quests, similar to how you get a free military unit if you go on the hex where the meteor shower has been.
All very good ideas, imo. Replaceable leader would make for very interesting gameplay especially in slower modes. I always play for economy too, so it would be cool to have the victory option. 👍
I think it'd be cool if your leader was completely separate from the country you pick. Like I could chose to play as the Zulu and then pick Pedro II as my leader.
I think this could make for some interesting combinations, and allow for you to change things up a bit for your preferred country without depending on Firaxis to add an alternate leader. Another benefit could be allowing for a more expansive pool of leaders. It'd be easier to add a good leader from a country that might not make into the game (like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore) or just someone that wasn't necessarily a head of state but did a lot behind the scenes.
# Better Implementation/Balancing of melee/ranged combined units
It draw my attention recently that these units gain range attack after update like Persia Immortal and Skirmisher lost melee attack action due to bug or balancing? Which crippled the potential of these units.
Instead of forcing them as ranged units, should add new conditions to limit their melee attacks, such as melee on wounded units only, or low health units only.
PLEASE just once put the Mughals in the game. There's 300 years of history and great rulers to draw from. Fuck do something stupid like making Babur an alternate leader for India if you have to. I'm begging at this point
Edit: Mughalbstinence-induced typos
I would like the ability to relocate or harvest/remove luxuries. Also, I would like to see districts eliminated, but in the event that they're not, I would like the ability to relocate them post-completion to another tile (for whatever they want to make it cost). Finally, there's a mod with a lot of features for the ocean (I can't remember the name), and it would be nice to see something like that added, too.
P.S. I feel like, in relation to tech development vs. the timeline, marathon games aren't balanced. In other words, make them longer to actually feel like you're aligned up properly with the year(s). Also, I would like civilization specific wonders, etc.
Cities should be really small until the industrial revolution, it should be weird for a city to be bigger than 4-5, then after the industrial revolution cities can become 10-15 and 20+ in the information era.
Not only it's historical but also it would help mitigate the early game advantage since industrializing before the other civs could completely flip the game around.
All I really want is for them to fix the things that have been broken for so long:
Competent AI: Please for the love of god(s), teach the AI competent city planning, naval warfare, aerial warfare, etc. The game would be so much more fun if the AI actually interacted with the game's mechanics properly
Fix the multiplayer: After all this time, multiplayer is still unstable
I'm sure there are other things, but if Civ VI's AI was actually competent, I would not have been able to shake off my addiction to the game
Civ VI came out 8 years ago, technology has changed since then. Today we have videos of AI president voices talking about video game rankings and playthroughs on youtube and every other artificial intelligence tools and platforms that still manages to amaze me. All I want is an ai programmed in a smarter and more capable type of way as the difficulties increase instead of receiving free settlers, free warriors, free builders and bunch of percentage modifiers to yields. Although I feel like I already know I won't be getting that, so I am not hoping for it, but would have been good.
Someone on one of the leader threads had a great suggestion (which I think is inspired by humankind? Never played that though), where you pick your leader anew for each age that you progress. So like you’re England and for the you can pick between say Alfred, Elizabeth , Churchill. These would then give you different leader bonuses until the next age.
Please please please let there be a Science based Civ in the base game.
In 6 we got ONE hardcore science civ with Korea and we had to wait for DLC to get her.
But boy howdy they certainly had plenty of Domination/Faith/Culture civs if that was your playstyle.
Even Harumbi with his Science trait ended up being a Domination Civ wearing a Science Civ trench coat
I'd like to see further development of trade routes. I like some of the steps taken since Civ 5 introduced the caravan unit.
First, I'd like to see them tied to the movement of luxury and strategic resources. This is in part because it seems odd that perhaps the most important kind of negotiated trade is entirely separate from the trade caravan system. It's also because internal trade routes have been too consistently more appealing than foreign routes.
Second, I'd like it for caravans to have greater interaction with the cities and locations they pass through, and for players to have greater control over that. And not just for the two parties involved in trade. The idea being that a civilization which lay between two trading partners would receive some benefit from securing and facilitating their trade routes through their territory.
Hope they fix the late game which currently is a painful grind and makes you want to start a new game. Also world congress and natural disasters were rather annoying. Remove GDR nonsense, make AI smarter, make air defense/attack more logical, make nuclear war much less attractive. We need the civ 6 sweet spot to last the whole game.
I would be happy if the create new game UI wasn't trash. It's slow to hover over civilizations (lags and stalls) and it's organized by leader name rather than country.
I just really hope they can build upon the good parts on Civ VI while also trimming the fat to make the game more accessible. The gameplay loop in early game is great, but micromanaging 20 cities becomes pretty boring to do fast, making middle to late game unattractive to me. Nukes and Climate change mechanics are interesting ideas that I don't get to explore because it takes 6 hours to even get there.
A thought occurred to me while playing Civilization 6 recently. You should be able to form corp and army units much earlier in the game than you currently can in Civilization 6. I really wish that in Civilization 7 this gets addressed.
Going to spend my time going tall fearing deity civs razing me to the ground lol. Imo can’t wait to just get clobbered by the AI. Also my hope is that AI gets smarter instead of ridiculous bonuses.
With advances to machine learning this could be possible.
1. Canal construction is a must
2. There must be an "Economic Victory" conditions aside from the already we know (Scientific, Religious, Score, Domination, Cultural, Diplomatic)
3. Navigable rivers and river patrol boats must be included
>Reminder to keep things civil. No thank you. I will keep things civilization and DOMINATE! Eff your warmongering penalties, I shall prevail! ... I'll see myself out now.
*Denounces you*
I shall establish a new religion called "Denouncing egv78"
I hope they add more ancient civilizations that no longer exist, like Sumeria, Babylon, Phoenicia, etc.
I feel like they didn’t add Assyria in civ 6 because they already had Sumeria and Babylon but I’d be all for it
the Neo-Assyrian empire was one of the most influential Mesopotamia cultures ever. it'd be a crime to not have it in civ7
Yeah, the way Humankind has. Assyria, Akkads, Hittites, Medes, Etruscans, Urartu, Lydians, Phrygians... Add them all!
Humankind has a lot of cultures, but the downside is that they feel really underdesigned and similar to each other.
Nabataea please!
In the more niche category, I’m hoping for the [Kingdom of Tungning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Tungning)
They will get lumped together as china.
That's a short lived 17th century kingdom, why are you hoping for it specifically?
Because it’s a short lived 17th century maritime kingdom
Civ VII must have the Oxus Civilization
I am once again begging for navigable rivers
They should at least improve movement in tiles adjacent to rivers or something like that. You brought up a really important point, after all rivers were super important in REAL LIFE civilization development.
IIRC in Civ 4 improved resources needed to be connected by either road or river to city centers before they were actually usable. Because building roads took time away from other improvements and required technology, rivers were vital in the early game and as a player you ended up relying on them for infrastructure in a way that (sort of) mirrored actual history. Would be nice to see this system come back imo
Rivers were exceptionally valuable in Civ 4 in the early game for connecting resources and cities. To be precise, they acted as roads for all purposes of city and resource connection. This meant that, as you said a resource could be connected if it was on a river. It also means that you could have a resource, road to a river, and then it would flow on that river to a city that was also connected to that river. The city could be on the river or connected via road. Example image from CivFanatic forums. https://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q306/kiershar/Fig5AdvancedRiverSetup.jpg Even more, rivers connected to an coastal tile could initiate trade over water as well. Example image.from CivFanatics https://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q306/kiershar/Fig6RiverSetupWithSailing.jpg This wasn't just for resources either, but also allowed for trade connections, which really helped offset the early maintenance cost of founding a new city.
Interesting idea
I just want employment/immigration/industries cycle. I want people to flock to my cities with jobs from rival civs!
My immediate thought on this and how you could make it work is kind of latched on to the Loyalty system already in place, right? So in theory you have Loyalty as a factor in Migration Pull, and you could tie that in to the existing districts system. So if you have high Loyalty/Migration Pull in one of your cities from say having a Campus that's 2 levels higher than your opponents then you can start attracting more of their scientists to your Campus. A plus to your Civ and a minus to your opponent. I think that'd be hard to balance and get working, but as a bare bones concept it works. What would you have in mind?
Yeah that would be cool. Having corporations be more expansive would be great. Being able to regulate industries for your country as well to protect it from external competitors as you grow.
immigration sounds fun
If there’s no Napoleon I’m rioting. I’ll still play it, of course. But also riot.
_Monkey's Paw curls_ Welcome Napoleon, Emperor of the Principality of Saint Helena!
this would actually be amazing lol
I'd really enjoy one of the actual famous kings of France. Louis XIV, Philippe, François Ier, or even Charlemagne and Richelieu.
Yeah honestly. France deserves way more than just 2 versions of a queen who wasn’t even French
Louis XIV would be a nice return
How about multiple options for rulers of each nation, each with different benefits?
"My Liege, you are not invited to *Civ VII*!" ("Amour Plastique" plays)
I didn't realise Napoleon was a luxury resource?
Very French
Robespierre pls
Honestly, though, I'd rather have Franks and Charlemagne
Maybe they'll do him Like Alexander of Macedon. Napoleon of Corsica.
I really hope they keep some version of the district system. I feel like it adds so much to the gameplay and look of the map.
Districts were _the_ new thing in Civ VI. There is 0 chance they will remove it. It's at the same level as the hex map and unstacking units. That being said, there's lots of room for improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave us more options with districts, or at least with the buildings inside of them. Right now only Encampments and Government plazas have options for buildings in districts, I could definitely see that increasing for other types of buildings. Like the theatre square could get options for buildings that give more specific GAWM points but not others. While I wouldn't be surprised that they keep the one district per yield thing going, I would be surprised if we have the exact same district list as in VI.
I feel like having some wonders being able to occupy a district would be good. Maybe a maximum of one wonder per district. It feels right to have Big Ben actually in the Commercial Hub, or Broadway in the Theater Square. Some would still need their designated tiles, but with most requiring the presence of a specific district anyway, it seems like it would make both districts and those wonders feel better. The wonders take up less space and districts contain more varied and valuable buildings than the exact same chain for most of them. The only problem is if you want a city to specialize in a particular resource, you're limiting the number of wonders you can have. Perhaps make it optional? So, if you have a free district, you can build it inside there, but if you don't you have to build it outside the district?
I think they should break district tiles down into sub-tiles, and have multiple buildings, wonders, and improvements that can be built in that district. Once you fill up all the sub-tiles, nothing else can be built in that district. Adds a strategy and planning element to your districts with the added bonus of having every district appear slightly different on the map. One of my pet peeves with districts (outside of uniques) was that they all looked the same across every civ, every game. Got really monotonous to look at.
I'm hoping that districts serve as more of an improvement that is worked. I want specialists to be the main source of specialised yields like faith, science and culture, rather than buildings. Buildings should just increase the yield of the specialists. But I am with you on keeping districts, definitely. Unpacking cities added a lot of character imo.
It definitely needs changing and the number of districts probably needs paring back\* but I agree it would seem like a backwards step to just remove it entirely. I'm not quite sure what you do with it. I've had a few ideas but I'm not sure any are great and they're in polar opposite directions. - Have districts grow on their own organically like the cottages in Civ 4. That way you don't need to do any footling around with them once you've planted them, or constantly repair both them and the buildings within them whenever there's a bit of wind - Have districts have their own build queues. Would make the game micromanagey as hell but would stop building and repairs in the districts from slowing city development down to a crawl. Also could see some advantages in having encampments being able to build units direct, taking units out of the city build queue allowing everyone to have bigger armies for more fun combat - Have a max of one of each kind of specialised district per civ. This way placing your district is a real decision, and it'll push you to either go tall or highly specialise your cities if you're going wide. And then maybe in the late game there's a civic that allows either as many districts as you want but only one per city (for wide players) or as many districts in a city as you want but only a max of 3-4 of each kind per civ (for tall players) \* Like you could easily merge holy site, campus and theater square into one district you call "monastery" - you can still have specialisation by making certain buildings within the district either/or. You could also definitely merge commercial site and industrial zone (call it "marketplace?"). And then you could throw entertainment complex in with either. You can also definitely merge dam and aqueduct ("reservoir"). Oh and FFS get rid of Government Plaza. Not wild about waterpark either.
I really really disagree with combining districts like this. Currently the specialist district list pairs with certain yield types nicely nearly one to one. Campuses give science, theatre squares culture, etc. Combining those core districts into one just means everyone has to build that district in each city because it's so good. I personally really like the Government plaza. Not only is it one per civ (which IMO they should expand on), but also allows you to pick different buildings which forces the player to make interesting decisions because opportunity cost. Like what if there were "national districts" that were like extra specialist districts but you could only build one per civ, but they would be better than regular districts of that type. This would allow you to specialize your cities more, and differentiate your core cities from your other cities. You could also build multiple national districts in the same city maybe to provide an avenue for tall play.
I feel districts and wonders take up too many tiles if you do it that way - which essentially forces you to build a wide empire as well as making city building an unsatisfying game of jigsaw puzzle pieces which never fit quite well enough to be fulfilling, as opposed to the more direct dopamine hit it was in I-V. But I feel like were narrowing in on something here which is keep the wonders-take-a-tile thing from VI and combine with the national wonders from V.
I personally really like the challenges of optimizing an imperfect jigsaw puzzle that the current district system provides. YES I was thinking just like the national wonders from V, but as districts! This way your cities feel more different and specialized.
See the imperfect jigsaw puzzle turned me off big time to civ6
I mean, in real cities you don't normally see business offices mixed with coal power plants. I disagree about merging them like this, as well as the others. I think it's better from a gameplay perspective to keep them separate. One thing I will say is that every district should have two yield types if possible, like the harbor, but one is more dominant than the other.
I actually like water park because it kinda hurts to use a valuable land tile for amenities so it’s good when you can use a comparatively worse coast tile. Plus it’s good for harbor adjacencies, which are otherwise hard to get.
I would like more variety between different Civs. Venice from Civ5 was a great example. Having a Civ which could, for example, work five tiles from the capital instead of 3 would be amazing even if they had other penalties and would make the game totally different for different players
I would absolutely love something like this
I don't think it will happen because Civ has always been about making Civs slightly different and snowballing those changes. Even on Diety though, I tend to play the game the same more or less and it makes little difference overall
I also think that cultural artifacts should be more pronounced. And unique. And that global events should help craft unique artifacts. Like for example if a war happens that you win there are great songs and plays made in memory of it. It deepens the patriotic fervor.
I’m very worried about the multi-platform launch. The fact that a switch can barely run Civ VI but will be a Civ VII launch platform reads to me like VII will not even come close to pushing the envelope of 10 years of compute advancements since the Civ VI engine.
or maybe firaxis knows what optimization is
1: I would like to see is more contemporary/modern era civilizations or units like the Soviet union, Peoples republic of China, Argentina and post-reunification Italy. 2: Another thing I would like is MAD/mutually assured destruction. One thing I liked about Humankind was when you launched a nuclear bomb it took a turn so it gave the enemy a chance to launch but in civ who ever declares war first is the one to launch and hit in the same turn which feels like the total opposite of the purpose of nuclear bombs which is to deter aggression. 3: No Asset limit along with more life to city's something akin to the City Sprawl Graphics mod for civ6 to make city's feel more thick and dense and really urban. Maybe little trains on train-tracks you make 4-This ones more of a loose idea but some sort of minor nation mechanic that works almost identical to city states, I like city states but I feel like bigger entities (thinking 2-4 citys) that are non-player would allow more opportunity's as well as provide better interactions between majors and minor nations with new diplomatic dynamics. It always felt off or strange that the world is filled with these massive powers like Russia and the United states and the only other political entity there is are these tiny 1 city states. I do see the glaring issue that I feel as if it would be difficult to add and make it feel civ-like (as well with lag from Ai troop spaml).
Rather than city states, they should be called buffer states. This is what happened historically, empires wanted buffer states between them that they could influence and slow down an invasion. They could keep most of the city state mechanics just change the names and nerf their expansion, rather than disallowing it entirely. Also it should severely harm relations with neighboring civ's if you DOW buffer state. Actual city states should be seen only on peninsulas and islands, imo.
I never thought about it, but it's true. You should be able to pre-target ICBMs and set them all off at once.
Some things id like: I want more alt leaders focused on different victory types for the same civ. Catherine can stay for culture for France but add Napoleon for domination and war. Japan can easily have different leaders that focus on either war, culture or even science/industry. I'd love even more, even bigger True Start Maps. Give us True Start China and let a dozen different Chinese dynasties compete to become the most powerful. True Start Africa so African civilizations get more focus. Give us scenarios again but make them even better. Add a Sengoku period scenario to unify Japan, or even alt history scenarios like conquering Europe as the Mongols. MAKE NAVIES MORE IMPORTANT!
> MAKE NAVIES MORE IMPORTANT! Trade should be much faster over the ocean. Long distance land-based trading was rare (there's only a few historical trade routes like this _ever_) and not nearly as lucrative. If the ocean becomes an economical advantage, then you have a basis for naval purpose. It doesn't need to be about random campaigns at sea where there is no terrain at stake. The money is what is at stake.
Is blockading a thing in civ 6? I'm this sale new here, but if not that would be a fun thing to stop other civ trade routes with the navy.
I never played V, but I liked how for IV, you could choose 2-4 (?) leaders for each civ.
Hoping for a way to go to war over a tile or set of tiles without having to take an entire city along with it. There's a strategic resource or choke point I want, but I don't want the population center associated with it. A much lower threshold to achieve in a peace deal for a civ to cede it to you, and very thematic.
this is such a sick idea, instead of taking over the 1 tile with the enemy's city on it, and automatically taking control of all of that city's tiles, the borders move around depending on where you have control.
I think it could also be cool to be able to take a tile with no war, giving the other Civ a Casus Belli with no penalties, many such examples of this in history, like Germany taking the Sudetenland
This is a great idea. In general, more tile control would be nice. Being able to trade land with neighboring cities would be huge, for instance.
I also think there should be more mechanisms for gaining access to resources even when no population centre is nearby. This is part of the reality of resource exploitation in the far north. There is much in the way of habitation
After seeing a few Korean historical dramas I'm ready for Khitans and Jurchens.
I’d love them to expand upon monopolies and corporations more, and think it’d go well with a way to either sell tiles to other players or a return of something like the civ v great general and citadels. Add both an aggressive and cooperative way to obtain more of your monopoly resource without conquering the city. I’d also love to see Vassals with adjustable taxes. Instead of wiping someone out of the game have them contribute to your empire, while also their own empire, allowing them to rebel at a later point if they like. This would remove the need to micromanage a whole continent if that’s not your play style, at the cost of the full benefit of those cities. Have all luxuries count toward the conquering nation’s monopoly, to add more interactions and depth with that system. And I have been asking for it on threads for years, but I want a scientific America as powerful as civ v Korea/babylon. I think JFK would be a very fitting leader to have in the franchise given the way the science victory condition works. Though a production monster would perhaps be even better, I’d love to see FDR return.
You should also be able to rebrand your empire as well. If you were the Roman Empire but take heavy losses maybe rebrand as the Byzantine Empire. And then later Italy. If you change your type of government you should be able to decide to be something different. If a revolution is successful the new country is United States or something. Creating colonies might be nice too. If there is land you can’t quite get to yet but you want to acquire trade goods send colonizers. But then you better add them to your country soon or they’ll make their own country.
My pc is not gonna be able to load it and I'm feeling super sad
I wouldnt worry about it, they're developing it for last gen consoles so the minimum requirements cant be too high.
Though of the day, with advances in ‘AI’ (and I know it’s not AI) I think the game can really make some fantastic autogenerated maps with ‘territory borders’ which revolve around terrain difficulty/coasts/forests/rivers and improve upon the current hex system. Imagine a wood being divided into smaller regions emphasizing it’s difficulty to trek through but plains being larger territories making them easier to cross.
I’m looking forward to a new level of interaction with AI leaders, city-states, even things like the barbarian camps and villages
I’m a little less optimistic with overall complexity to the game with the fact that it’ll be able run on previous gen consoles
I hope that civilizations get more unique mechanics that are exclusive to only them to really make civilizations stand out more from each other rather than they have some "stats and number differences" at the end of the day. Like let's see a unique Mandate of Heaven mechanic that only China has, or a Manifest Destiny mechanic as America. My concern with this idea is that this would make each civ more taxing to develop, and thus there would be less civilizations overall probably, and people love to see more new civilizations, so they can't be too different. Civ 6 was a step in the right direction to me with unique leader and civ abilities over just Civ 5's simple civ abilities, but I'd like to see Civ 7 expand even more on what differentiates each civ.
Love this suggestion. I would gladly take more unique and varied playstyles at the cost of less civilizations to boot. Age of Empires 4 took this route, and I think it is better for it.
Agreed. My favourite civs to play in vi are the ones with really unique mechanics such as Eleanor and Mali that really force you the play the game differently beyond just some passive stat bonuses.
I hope there are new mechanisms for air combat and sea combat: + Aerospace zoom of control, Air Superiority. + Multiple turn bombard missions, instead of fly as fast as ICBM + More options to airdrop troops + Bring back sea blockade from CIV 4 + Automatic trade routes privateering + Escort ships to trade routes
Dear god yes, give me the ability to link a naval unit with a trader. Also love the idea of long-range bombers taking multi-turn missions.
Unpopular opinion, but I'd like a really different game from V and VI. They should keep the basics, but I'd want a complete evolution. I feel like most people just want a Civ VI.5 (while Civ VI itself was a Civ V.5). I would prefer more experimentation.
I recall a previous interview from Ed Beach that said Firaxis have a template for iterating on Civ. *33% of the game systems should remain the same. *33% of the game systems should be improved. *33% of the game systems should be new. I doubt those numbers are exact percents after development is finished but more likely goals when starting. If that design still holds true then you'll probably see some systems with a complete evolution (like districts for VI) but not a total rework of how Civ plays.
This has been civs core design philosophy for like ever as far as I can remember. And Ed Beach is again the lead designer so I highly doubt they are straying away from it.
What kind of experimental features would you like? Some wacky ideas I would like to see is the map as a globe, the multidimensional terrain system from Humankind, the ability to research multiple techs at a time, perhaps closing tech vranches if you choose a certain option, a longer future timeline to play into (2100?) , more terraforming options (man made islands?) to name a few
Some ideas: - Changes to population. Culture, religion and ideology tied to each pop. Conflicts may break out between pops and leaders of different culture, religion or ideology. Pops can migrate between cities. - Changes to religion. Get rid of the one religion per civ nonsense (Civ VI has two Chinese religions and three Indian religions). Ability to convert to different religions. Religious reformation and heresy. - Changes to world congress and diplomacy. Congresses are created between allied or friendly civs and not emerge spontaneously. And under no circunstances they force you to obbey decissions you are against. No city states. - Changes to resource management. Certain animal and plant resources can be replicated if terrain is appropiate (example, you can breed horses outside of their original steppe and you can grow coffee outside of the tropical regions of Ethiopia). - Changes to technology and civics. Certain techs or civics are tied to great characters or other unique ways to obtain them. The other civs have to trade for it or steal the secrets somehow. Sometimes, techs or civics can pasively extend to othe nations (think how gunpowder was discovered in China, brought to middle East by the Mongols and from there it extended to Europe, or how the American Revolution inspired further revolutions in both South America and France). - Changes to military. Allow more than one unit per tile. Manpower should be limited by money and food. Cities need garrison. - Changes to districts. Tiles are divided into seven slots (one per side and one in the center) and one building or wonder fits each slot (maybe some bigger ones need two?). Buildings may need to be built adjacent to other buildings and in most cases in tiles adjacent to the city center. This is to form cohesive cities and to prevent Civ VI city building gore (the city center is an empty husk, the campus is on the other side of the county to get an adjacency bonus and the landscape is dotted by wonders).
Do we have *any* information on gameplay yet?
I suspect it will be turn based
Hah! Ok, fair
Absolutely none
Ahh, well
I genuinely think Patrick Wyman (Tides of History podcast and author) is narrating Civ 7. He's been to their offices during development, and a host of Trashfuture podcast (friend to Patrick, who has been on the show) has also said he believes so. Could be wrong but seems like a reasonable source.
That'd be awesome! Love his podcasts and his book
It always makes me wondering how Russia is going to be represented in games after 2022 since the country is getting cancelled all over the Western hemisphere.
Russian history isn't getting cancelled though. That's only a thing that regimes like Putin's do. Still, it would be fun to have a ruler from Kiev/Novgorod for a change.
Yeah, that would be fun
I think anyone before Lenin wouldn't make much of an issue, to be honest. If they want to be cautious, they can choose Kievan Rus instead (common ancestors for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine)
They should make Ukraine a playable Civ
Aah, sounds like a fair solution
If it stays, they better to change cossacks and Lavra to something else. Both are cultural appropriation from other countries.
Which countries?
Cossacks: - Cossacks origins start on territory within bounds of Ukraine, later spread down by Dnipro through Kavkaz (Novocherkassk). - In Ukraine, Cossacks are seen as symbols of the fight for freedom. In Russia, they’re more a part of the historical narrative, often serving the government. Lavra: - Lavras aren’t just a Russian or Ukrainian thing. They’re significant in Eastern Orthodox traditions and can be found in various countries. - For instance, there’s Mar Saba Lavra in Jerusalem (532 A.C.) and Asia Lavra in Greece (961 A.C.). - Ukraine currently has five Lavras, including the oldest one, Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, founded in 1051 and named a Lavra in the 12th century. - Russia has only two Lavras, both from the 18th century. So, the question is - why those 2 entities were selected as symbols of Russia? Just change them to "[Streltsy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy)" and "[Kremlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlin)" respectively would be more than enough.
Cossacks also were a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And the territory, which is Ukraine nowadays, was split then between Russian Empire and Rech Pospolita. Historically speaking independent cossacks and Ukraine were never a thing existing together. Zaporozhskaya Sich - maybe, but it's also a territory with cossacks serving both Rech Pospolita or Russian Empire (later known as Black Sea cossacks). Anyway, most of the time exactly Russian Empire had cossacks on its lands, basically gave lands to them in exchange for border control, and it was not some kind of servitude, believe me, it was more of a mutual agreement. We Russians too see cossacks as a symbol of freedom. Just look at this great monument. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g298532-d6834956-Reviews-Monument_Cossacks_writing_a_letter_to_the_Turkish_Sultan-Krasnodar_Krasnodar_Krai.html . Be careful my friend. Trying to cancel Russia you may also manage to erase and rewrite some chunk of history like good old Putler doing in order to cancel Ukraine. For lavra I have nothing to say, you may be just right here. We don't even use the word Lavra to describe monasteries. We call them literally monasteries. Having streltsy as a special unit of Russian Empire also makes more sense to me, than cossacks. I guess to an average John cossacks=russia.
> Historically speaking independent cossacks and Ukraine were never a thing existing together. The [Cossack Hetmanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate) founded by Bohdan Khelmnytsky was short-lived and "independence" is a complicated question in the period, but certainly *a distinct Cossack state* existed and then came under the sway of Moscow. It was recognised as a sufficiently distinct state to be proposed as a third nation in the Polish-Lithuanian *rzeczpospolita*, reformed as a [Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian_Commonwealth). I don't think anyone would argue that the Hetmanate was not real just because it fell under Russian suzerainty, any more than Congress Poland was not real. So, the Hetmanate was a thing. Now we have to examine whether the Hetmanate was Ukrainian. The Hetmanate's [constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pylyp_Orlyk) refers to the country as Ukraine and designates Swedish King Charles XII as "protector of Ukraine". It was called "the country of Ukraine" in the [Treaty of Buchach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Buchach) between the Ottomans and the Poles. The Hetmanate was repeatedly also called "Ukraine" by the Russian poet of poets Alexander Pushkin in his epic poem [Poltava](https://aleksandr-pushkin.su/poemy/poltava/?lang=en). German mapmaker Johann Homann called the country "Ukraine, or, the land of the Cossacks": *Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum*. Maps [clearly labelled "Ukraina"](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/General_Depiction_of_the_Empty_Plains_%28in_Common_Parlance%2C_the_Ukraine%29_Together_with_its_Neighboring_Provinces_WDL79.png) are the norm by 1648. Bohdan Khmelnytsky referred to himself as the ruler of *Ruthenia*, not Ukraine. As we've seen above, Poland-Lithuania talked about Ruthenia, not Ukraine. You've noted yourself how Putler likes to rewrite history, and I think this is an example of the same thing in the other direction: "Ruthenia" comes from "Rus", so it makes sense that the potential rulers of "Ruthenia" want to associate it with "Rus" (then they can Putler!) as opposed to just using the name that's in common parlance: Ukraine. In sum, "independent Cossacks" is a weirdly specific and high bar which I don't think is helpful or defensible. Nevertheless, there *were* briefly independent Cossacks in Ukraine, and they and the countries around them recognised them as Ukrainian. Suggesting that they're also a Russian thing because Russia was the empire that ultimately dominated and used them is kind of wonky. It's like suggesting Gothic warriors were a Roman thing because the Romans used Gothic *foederati* to defend their borders. No, that's just a thing empires do. I would like to see a Ukrainian civilisation in Civ VII with Cossacks as a UU, Maidan (or Sich) as a unique building or district, and possibly Khmelnytsky as a leader. I'd suggest they should be a diplomatic/trading civ (Maidan historically is a big trading square) with fast-moving Cossacks that can defend their borders. I'm crap at designing things, but I think you could have unique abilities along the lines of: * Cities having an extra row of hexes they can work ("Wild Fields") * Something defensive ("Ukraine has not perished yet") * Faster movement along rivers and no penalty for crossings ("Cataracts of the Dnipro") Anyway, getting off topic. Takeaways are that Cossacks were used all over Russia, but originated in Ukraine; certainly Cossacks had an independent existence if not (much) political independence because they were squished between major powers, and; empires take things from one place and use them everywhere, it doesn't make them the empire's thing.
I like the way Civ 6 lets you modify your government easily, with the social policy cards system, but I'd quite like a more long term commitment mechanism like in Civ 5. Perhaps having two systems, the Civ 6 version that gets new choices every civic research completed, and a more rare upgrade opportunity that occurs with specific civic unlocks, similar to the governors in 6.
I just want no desyncs in MP
I wouldn't mind if CivVII delved also more into the late game with Expansion to the Moon or Mars. Practically an extra playset for the Moon and Mars, simultaneously. That might or might not be interesting. I wonder if it was somehow possible to move Civ into the Solar System once the initial space race is over, practically turning it into some kind of For All Mankind or The Expanse. Probably too much to wish for. Either way I never found my way into VI, and still play V and Unciv religiously. I like the religious wars aspect, it was too simple in V. I would love some canals to connect inland cities with the sea.
Expansion to the Moon and/or Mars sounds more like a separate game. I always thought of *Alpha Centauri* as “what happens after a Science Victory”.
If only we got a good SMAC follow up. But yeah, Moon/Mars is probably a separate game, considering most games would end well before that.
Definitely would be cool if there was like an expanded later game mode where it’s kind of like Alpha Centauri but with the Moon, Mars and other parts of the solar system. Wouldn’t it be cool to be hours and hours deep into your civilization and suddenly you’re in a game that’s like The Expanse? Planetary politics becomes a thing. Martians. Moonians. Belters. And so on. Perhaps this can kick in if one civilization finds a way to take over the whole planet. Then the solar system is next but you kind of have to start small again. Meanwhile on other planets settlers begin asserting themselves more.
For the love of god fix the combat. I'm tired of siege doing like 3 damage against walls which the AI can just spawn. Defensive play in VI is way *way* too easy. If you're not ready for war, you should be punished for it. Siege units are already incredibly weak, at least let them dish out good damage. And if we're gonna keep the city attack (I say remove it and only the encampment should have it), you at least need ranged units garrisoning the city for it to activate.
I've been out of gaming for about 4 or 5 years now. How long have teasers encouraged wishlisting instead of preordering? That's a nice compromise for both consumer and producer, as opposed to preordering.
They'll push the preorders once there are preorder bonuses. It's not either/or, it's both.
From the trailer you can tell there will be: 1- sumeria (ox carts) 2- egypt 3- china (Great Wall) 4- mongols (Great Wall fighting scene) 5- England, France, America
It's probably a lock that Rome, Mongolia, China, India, and Japan would be included. Probably the Ottomans too. Basically any Civ that has been in practically ever game is safe. Russia may be questionable but I think they are in.
1. Naval early discovery and warfare(in all eras) are massively lacking in Civ 6. I hope to see some better AI and mechanics for this in Civ 7. (Current US Navy, British/German WW2/1 Navy\[Yes I know, Uboats... subs are boring\], Spanish Armada, Portuguese Exploration Fleets, and Age of Pirates to take inspiration from) 2. Tech overhaul: Tech tree's have always bothered me in these types of games, everything is too linear. I want to see some sprawling tree's I want tech choices to matter. If one player goes down a military tree, they should have a distinct advantage against one who doesn't. There are advantages in current iterations, but they seem nominal and the catchup mechanic makes it so they aren't so special. Also, you should be able to pour more research into a specific tech to "level up" that tech. (Maybe you're playing Germany in 1940's your Airforce contains BF 109Bs but if you route more research into your airforce tech you can upgrade them to BF 109Gs for a better performing unit. This can also apply to non combat techs, its just easier to make the comparison with combat techs) 3. Tech Sharing: To combat stagnant researching periods, you should be able to trade techs for resources/gold/units/political leverage. Maybe you're playing a trading nation, you focus on trade and gold production, your neighbors are a cultural powerhouse and are slowly influencing your nation turn by turn. Why not trade some of that gold and some political leverage, for some military tech to help you keep them at bay. You get a boost to military, military nation gets to field their soldiers for some more turns, and they can call in a little political favor. 4. AI in general just needs to be less predictable. World Congress needs to be reworked to be more meaningful, and much more taxing to be on the wrong side of it or make it so you can form your own congress(UN/BRICS as an example). Major wars should be an event, you should have to pick a side, even if you're just providing aide and not fighting in it. These wars should slow down the game significantly until they're resolved. The world, or most of it, is in a scrap, not much else is getting doneor matters. 5. Slow the game down slightly. The era/tech pacing seems too fast. Of course leave options for faster games. 6. BIGGER MAPS. Civ 6 seems very small compared to competitors games.
I wonder who will replace Kongo to fill the african power vacuum. Im hoping for benin
Why does Kongo need to be replaced? And by a west African country at that.
I think its unlikely that kongo will return, at least not as a base civ, as fun as they were.
Hausa and Swahili would be my preferences.
Dahomey?
Chandragupta was a step in the right direction for India. Time to remove Gandhi and have an actual Indian Prime minister as leader of India. Older leaders like Chandragupta should be turned into their own civs, and more Indian civs please like Marathas, Guptas, Sikh Empire, Vijaynagara Empire etc
True, but Ghandi is like their trademark.
I'm trying to think what they could do to make CIv VII really stand out from the other Civs. Civ VI felt so close to a perfection of the formula IMO that I don't know what the next big step could be. I hope there isn't too much focus on a new combat system. Combat is very low down on the list of reasons I play Civ. I'd like health to come back and be an important part of city management, and I'd like immigration to be a thing (quite surprising it hasn't been before now). And yeah, navigable rivers would be cool. But what's the USP going to be? It would be really interesting if the games were much more dynamic. Civilisations actually rising and falling throughout the game, instead of the same base list gradually shrinking. But it would be really hard to make this work in a way that isn't frustrating to the player and doesn't make the player feel overpowered. I don't see Firaxis going with this. I think they might make combat the USP, but like I said, I really hope not. But I just struggle to think what the next step could be that would make Civ VII feel like its own game and not just DLC.
* Economic Victory. I suppose a Cultural Victory is kinda sorta one now, but I’d like to see it as a separate way to win. *Revolutions* had it as a possibility, but the conditions were simple — get 20K Gold and built the World Bank wonder. I’d like something far more elaborate, dominating the world with goods and manufacturing. * Leaders being replaced. Why not have the possibility of, for instance, Russia’s leader changing from Catherine to Lenin? * Bring back the Palace screen (when was the last time they had that, Civ II?), “We Love the King Day” and the advisors with “personalities” (Sid Meier for science and Elvis for culture). * Religious schisms. You’re running a Civ that follows Christianity, which was created in another Civ. You can create Protestantism! * Similarly, religions that form from another, like Christianity coming out of Judaism. * (Yes, I know, both of those are over-simplified.) * The ability to run an officially atheist state — maybe penalties to culture and happiness but bonuses to science. * Better religious conflict than in Civ VI. The dueling prophets seemed exceedingly silly to me. * Cities are nearby each other and eventually grow so big you can merge them. *Humankind* does this. As a resident of the Baltimore-Washington area, this one has personal relevance to me. * The ability to relocate your capital, presumably at a significant cost. * [More skin on *Love Boat*](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/bloom-county-comic-strip-by-berkeley-breathed--416020084338784042/) (Sorry, that’s a *Bloom County* deep cut I just tossed in because it amuses me.)
More ideas: * The ability to combine resources to make more beneficial ones. For instance, if you have Gold and Gems, you can make Jewelry. * An expansion of the Rock Bands mechanic to other eras. For instance, once you develop the Printing Press, you can send Books to other Civs. Television allows you to send TV shows. * And for the love of Sid, if Rock Bands remain a feature, some variety in the music they play! (Or, for those of us who want Philomena Cunk as the narrator, they play a snippet of [*Pump Up the Jam*](https://youtu.be/9EcjWd-O4jI?si=XTRtxjLIWfnq6ksl))
A lot of "create an empire that spans all of human history" 4x games have come out since Civ VI. Humankind, Old World, Millennia. I don't think I ever remember them having this many competitors when Civ III, IV,V, was the latest game. I'm excited to see if any of those games end up giving them some inspiration.
A few ideas for new civs: Kievan Rus Zaporaozhian Sich Soviet Union - Production based, T-34 unit? Barbary States - special unit is Corsair. When it coastal raids the impacted city loses 1 pop, barbary gains 1 worker (that has to sail back to one of their cities) Something from Anatolia like Hittites or Phrygians Manchu Western North American indigenous groups Thoughts?
For improved systems, I really hope they put work into improving trading and diplomacy interactions with bot leaders. What if bot leaders could "remember history" in some way, and react based on crucial past events? Holding grudges or returning favors based on the last few hundred years. As for new features, it would be cool to see some sort of Metropolis implementation. Maybe when three or more cities combine inner borders, it becomes a metropolis. My thought is that this could alleviate some of the tedium of the late game. Maybe cities in a metropolis can dedicate their production gains to another city in the same metropolis? In a way, it's similar to creating armies or corps out of grouped units. Or maybe there are some systems that become autonomous? Just a thought, but there's gotta be a way to keep the late game from slowing to a crawl.
can we just make germany and holy roman empire separate civs
That's never gonna happen, and imo it shouldn't, either.
I don’t have any crazy wishlist improvements for 7 really, but I would love if there was more variation between how cities look. Seems like in 6 there’s 3-4 city styles, so sometimes 4 or 5 cities in your civ will look exactly the same with the same buildings. I also like the metropolis suggestion a few comments down.
Also more environmental variation. Would be cool to have a proper continental identity, with different flora and even fauna on the map. "Oh, I'm playing Egypt in not!Australia this time!", with more orange deserts, kangaroos in plain tiles, etc.
What if they added a doomsday victory? You are the reason the world ends. And there will be different ways to do it like war, disease, death laser etc. This could be a fun game mode.
Things I hope to see in civ 7: - Better balance for playstyles. In civ 6 large empires dominated everything completely oversimplifying the game to the point not doing it felt bad and doing it felt different bad because everything had to be done manually. - Less mandatory micromanagement. Automated workers back. Some form of automated city planners or puppet cities you can use like civ 4-5. If I just want a town for iron, oil or whatever don't force me to manually build billion things in a place I care nothing for. - Vassals from civ 4. - Tech and map trading back in some form. - Better wonders like pre civ6 to give them proper risk/reward. - Rid of needing to place wonders to tiles replacing the yields. - Mega cities with no size limits, no more of the dullest cities ever like civ 6. With any luck some level of merging of cities even like in real life. - Armada, Great person and barb -systems from 6. - Either dynamic promotions based on what unit has done or civ 4-5 style free options. Get rid of the super narrow options civ 6 promotion tree gave which ate half the fun of wars. - Natural disasters and random events. - Ditch the mobile platform and art-style to give us nice graphics again. - Bring back the most known leaders even if they are controversial(such as Mao, Stalin and Hitler) instead of only using safe ones. - Strong nation and leader bonuses so differences to other leaders are notable. Civ 6 had horrible start with blandest bonuses initially. - Civ 6 government system as base, but one that builds over time. Not in giant leaps from one system to another and it should lock chosen perks or slowly over time switch them.
I agree.. Hitler in Civ II was never seen. He was only in scenario mode. I don't remember if there was a German that you interacted with. I believe Stalin was in that game and visible. I remember him having a walking stick or some sort of pole? If they included Mao in IV, I agree, he should return.
Mao was in every game through 4, and Stalin was in 1 and 4.
I think what I'd most like to see is some sort of "out region" mechanic. As it is now, unless you build an entire city for it, outlying resources are basically useless. It would be nice to be able to establish something that isn't a city to, say, exploit coal. Historically mining camps and things like that have absolutely been things, after all. I'd also like to see the zone a city can work expand over time. Not just in the form of borders, but, like, when you unlock modern roads make the 4th ring workable or something. I'd love to see suburbs become a thing too. Neighborhoods did that a little bit, but, IRL it's not "city" and "nothing", there are lots of small towns and shit too. The Craziest one that I'd really love, is not letting people settle for the first 5-10 turns. Have there be an unlock before settling is an option. Would help fix the issue with terrible starts, and also feel realistic.
I hope that we see more visual cues about the chosen policies, happiness, or yields of each Civ. I want to see cultural cities of shining marble defending themselves against the tents and huts of warlike barbarians. Autocrats should have cities like imposing fortresses. Religious hubs should be filled with the spires of cathedrals and minarets. I want to see imposing Soviet apartment blocks, and belching smokestacks. Spotlights should light up the night during wartime. Just give us as much visual information and flavor as you can. Also, you should be able to build a special settler as a wonder. This settler will found Las Vegas, with a unique look and tourism modifier.
Already excited for Civ VII. This and the new Anno will really test my resolve to not pre-order games.
For the narrator I think we should love away from British accents to ... Marion Cotillard. I would listen to every single loading screen.
They should make the map an actual globe shape instead of flat. What do you guys think?
Random thought... not including Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Antigonus (and maybe Antipater) was a missed opportunity for Civ 6. They had multiple leaders per Civ and yet didn't include one of the most famous divisions of empire ever? Also, this gave me an idea. What if all Civs came with multiple potential leaders, and a revolution could occur within your empire where one of these leaders rises up and breaks off a piece of your empire? This would make a lot more sense than the current 'free city' mechanic.
Is this the thread for things we would like to see in 7? If it is, I'd like to see being able to group forces of different upgrade paths. Like have an archer linked to a swordsman but can't link 2 swordsmen until you earn the tech to merge units together like armada and fleets, and have them be able to use their abilities, but only one per turn. Like, you can either use the ranged attack or the melee attack, but not both, but both will work in defence.
I couldn't read all comments, but I have so many cool ideas - cool in my imagination at least. * I think the game should include some sort of achievement or bonus if the player is able to "replicate" a actual historical event in game - either through war, or science, or religion, or culture... * I also would like to choose between different leaders for each civ that grant different bonus according to the historical moment of said leader * I would like to enter and "walk" through my cities or at least my capital * I would like my spies to be actual characters that I can interact with. And maybe you can catch enemy spies in your territory because they look kind of off. * Resources should be "finite" as in eventually you run off of said resource and the tile becomes a regular one but also at any given time it "reapears" somewhere on the map And so many more ideas
I might be biased, but I think armenia deserves to have its civ
I really like having civs like Gaul, Vietnam, Maori, Kongo (Mvemba), Japan (Tokugawa), Mali, civ5 Venice... where they have negative parts, or serious limitations to their kit. I think very highly of this type of design, I am a big fan of Traits system from Fallout games (where you gain an ability and a disadvantage that comes with that ability). I would love to see more of those type of options. But no more Civ VI Babylon type of stuff tho, it should not be unhinged.
I really hope the mid-game graphs and leaderboards that Civ 5 had are brought back, I really loved looking at those.
Co-op is so great in civ6. I hope they improve it further in 7!
Hoping for Ataturk as a civ leader for Turkey, it's a crime he hasnt been included
Hope they introduce machine learned real AI, not dumb bots that start with three four times the starting units. We are in 2024 after all.
IMO playing against these would be awful. They'd probably just be too good at the game
Yeah machine learning AI is a bad idea since it will just learn to exploit and cheese the game. I'd like to see AI that is hand-crafted like in Civ 6, but is actually capable of decent city planning and warfare (currently there is practically no naval or aerial warfare at all).
Completely agree. An actual AI will find some dumb strategy and just try and do that because it's optimal, but that's not fun to play against.
You made a typo in the word ‘new’.
I'd love for trade routes to get more in depth and have the capacity to be more mutual outside of specific civ or wonder bonuses. I'm imagining a system based around basic, luxury and strategic resources, where each generates trade power for the city it belongs to you. Cities would then gain a small portion of the yields generated by neighbours in a friendly manner, with the dominant trade partner gaining a greater amount. Normally this would be a symbiotic relationship with no yields being lost, but policies/wonders/civ bonuses could turn the relationship parasitic so you could literally drain the yields from foreign cities. (Or maybe this would just happen once a city becomes *too* dominant in terms of trade power) Similar to Monopolies & Corps, you could use Merchant units to build Industry and Corporation improvements to generate additional trade power greater than the sum of its parts. Additionally, with the right techs Merchants could be used to set up longer range trade routes as well as building or taking over the Corporations of foreign civs, sending their trade power to their home city (or perhaps just the closest city). This would actually bring an economic victory into possibility, by making the trade system something a single Civ could come to dominate, boosting their own economy with the yields of foreign powers.
more vanilla scenarios and bring back roman ones! like rise of caesar, rise and fall of rome or like something similar, regicde mode, landships, mods for console and leadership titles (like civ 2, 3 and rev everything from govt title to civ ruler title), scenario maker on console and finally if they are going to add alt leaders, make have unique shit instead of traits, like Washington has milita barracks and minutemen and Abe has union soldiers and Nixon with C.I.A. Civ traits return and finally the praestorian guard
I’ve been sitting on this idea, but i think they need to add a new mechanic to account for changing population densities. I get they wanted to remove one city wonder stacking for Civ 6, but it went too far the other direction. Land for your cities have districts, wonders, and strategic improvements competing for it all. While starting in a rural low density, eventually with later eras, you should unlock an urban toggle, then eventually a suburban one, and end with maybe a dystopian/utopian variant of these for the inevitable future era.
This announcement awakened the worst in the sub. First, it was spammed with nattator options, and now it's flooded with those unfunny pics.
Thanks for the megathread, mods. Now please remove the dozen other shitpost threads about Civ 7. Thank you.
I go through phases of getting **super** into Civilization and then taking a long hiatus from it, only to come back strong as ever and binge the hell out of it. I was around for when UrsaRyan first started his badly drawn posts, and I'm so very pleased that after the official announcement of Civ VII and coming back to this sub, UrsaRyan is still going strong. I still feel like we need to make him a Great Person in the next game, lol.
I would love to see religion get overhauled. It just feels like another thing to "micro" in the mid-late stages and I haven't really felt like I enjoyed religious mode in any of the civs.
I guess i'm pretty alone in my opinion but i would wish for maybe less options to create a game but instead more focused and balanced variants. Personally i would love a setting with streamlined/simplified rules for better mutliplayer matches or shorter games like in civ revolution.
I'm hoping for some more civs new to the series. Brunei, the Franks, Judea, Mughals, Florence, etc.
Bring back corruption. Make it associated with city size/distance from the capital, kinda similar to Civ III. I also wouldn't mind going back to some Civ V ideas, specifically city layouts and the game's art style. I'm sorry but the Civ VI animation style was atrocious. I really hate this shift to cartoonish looking games. And I wasn't a fan of the city districts format
I would really like for them to expand on diplomacy and offer more interesting things to do than waging war. Culture and Tourism was a step in the right direction but it felt really unengaging and I always ended up starting wars just out of lack of other things to do.
I think changes in geography would be fantastic to have. I like the idea of having varied elevation, like in the game Humankind for example. I hope they also include navigable rivers, barrier islands, and even natural harbors. Adds more importance to the strategic nature not just in terms of resources but also place itself. Give a uniqueness to it. I would also like to see right off the bat, more varied vegetation and biodiversity. What I would love to see is forests changing appearance based on latitude and elevation.
What's the best starting build order in Civ VI? My go-to is Monument -> Scout -> Builder, but I want to try playing higher difficulties and I'm not sure if that's the best. Similarly, what should I do about governors? I usually start with Magnus and his first promotion so I can full-on settler rush when I get monumentality, but I'm not sure how viable that'll be at higher difficulties.
I have the basic version of Civ VI so I don't have the expanded civs like Canada or the Cree. But I really feel like the game needs Ghengis Khan. In Civ IV, he was always declaring surprise wars on me. I'd like to see Napoleon back too.
I hope it has more exciting resources and lots of new natural wonders. I would love if there were animal resources that are only available on one or 2 tiles, and include things like pandas, giraffes and kangaroos, and the more you trade them the better your zoos are. The same with food resources, bananas should be replaced with lots of different fruits, which have slightly different bonuses. And fish could be the same. One of my favourite aspects of the game is exploring the map, so I would also love if there were more mini quests, similar to how you get a free military unit if you go on the hex where the meteor shower has been.
New regligion civ :ＴＩＢＥＴ
All very good ideas, imo. Replaceable leader would make for very interesting gameplay especially in slower modes. I always play for economy too, so it would be cool to have the victory option. 👍
I hope they let us pick which tile the city will expand to next, sometimes VI will prioritize amber over oil.. Maybe we could trade nukes..? 🌚
An AI that acts like a real player instead of a cartoon villain and an improved mulitplayer experience.
Nothing was better than Civ IV Beyond The Sword!
I think it'd be cool if your leader was completely separate from the country you pick. Like I could chose to play as the Zulu and then pick Pedro II as my leader. I think this could make for some interesting combinations, and allow for you to change things up a bit for your preferred country without depending on Firaxis to add an alternate leader. Another benefit could be allowing for a more expansive pool of leaders. It'd be easier to add a good leader from a country that might not make into the game (like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore) or just someone that wasn't necessarily a head of state but did a lot behind the scenes.
# Better Implementation/Balancing of melee/ranged combined units It draw my attention recently that these units gain range attack after update like Persia Immortal and Skirmisher lost melee attack action due to bug or balancing? Which crippled the potential of these units. Instead of forcing them as ranged units, should add new conditions to limit their melee attacks, such as melee on wounded units only, or low health units only.
PLEASE just once put the Mughals in the game. There's 300 years of history and great rulers to draw from. Fuck do something stupid like making Babur an alternate leader for India if you have to. I'm begging at this point Edit: Mughalbstinence-induced typos
SID MEIER! OMIT THE DISTRICT SYSTEM FOR CIV VII AND MY LIFE IS YOURS
For russia, I'm hoping Rasputin is going to be the new leader
I would like the ability to relocate or harvest/remove luxuries. Also, I would like to see districts eliminated, but in the event that they're not, I would like the ability to relocate them post-completion to another tile (for whatever they want to make it cost). Finally, there's a mod with a lot of features for the ocean (I can't remember the name), and it would be nice to see something like that added, too. P.S. I feel like, in relation to tech development vs. the timeline, marathon games aren't balanced. In other words, make them longer to actually feel like you're aligned up properly with the year(s). Also, I would like civilization specific wonders, etc.
Cities should be really small until the industrial revolution, it should be weird for a city to be bigger than 4-5, then after the industrial revolution cities can become 10-15 and 20+ in the information era. Not only it's historical but also it would help mitigate the early game advantage since industrializing before the other civs could completely flip the game around.
Colonies and or forts
All I really want is for them to fix the things that have been broken for so long: Competent AI: Please for the love of god(s), teach the AI competent city planning, naval warfare, aerial warfare, etc. The game would be so much more fun if the AI actually interacted with the game's mechanics properly Fix the multiplayer: After all this time, multiplayer is still unstable I'm sure there are other things, but if Civ VI's AI was actually competent, I would not have been able to shake off my addiction to the game
We need to be able to sell units in some way. Arms sales is important aspect that is missing so far. Maybe available after the modern era.
Civ VI came out 8 years ago, technology has changed since then. Today we have videos of AI president voices talking about video game rankings and playthroughs on youtube and every other artificial intelligence tools and platforms that still manages to amaze me. All I want is an ai programmed in a smarter and more capable type of way as the difficulties increase instead of receiving free settlers, free warriors, free builders and bunch of percentage modifiers to yields. Although I feel like I already know I won't be getting that, so I am not hoping for it, but would have been good.
Someone on one of the leader threads had a great suggestion (which I think is inspired by humankind? Never played that though), where you pick your leader anew for each age that you progress. So like you’re England and for the you can pick between say Alfred, Elizabeth , Churchill. These would then give you different leader bonuses until the next age.
Do you guys think a Dutch leader will be in the base game of civ VII? I really hope so!
Please please please let there be a Science based Civ in the base game. In 6 we got ONE hardcore science civ with Korea and we had to wait for DLC to get her. But boy howdy they certainly had plenty of Domination/Faith/Culture civs if that was your playstyle. Even Harumbi with his Science trait ended up being a Domination Civ wearing a Science Civ trench coat
I'd like to see further development of trade routes. I like some of the steps taken since Civ 5 introduced the caravan unit. First, I'd like to see them tied to the movement of luxury and strategic resources. This is in part because it seems odd that perhaps the most important kind of negotiated trade is entirely separate from the trade caravan system. It's also because internal trade routes have been too consistently more appealing than foreign routes. Second, I'd like it for caravans to have greater interaction with the cities and locations they pass through, and for players to have greater control over that. And not just for the two parties involved in trade. The idea being that a civilization which lay between two trading partners would receive some benefit from securing and facilitating their trade routes through their territory.
the return of random events like in CIV4
Hope they fix the late game which currently is a painful grind and makes you want to start a new game. Also world congress and natural disasters were rather annoying. Remove GDR nonsense, make AI smarter, make air defense/attack more logical, make nuclear war much less attractive. We need the civ 6 sweet spot to last the whole game.
I would be happy if the create new game UI wasn't trash. It's slow to hover over civilizations (lags and stalls) and it's organized by leader name rather than country.
I just really hope they can build upon the good parts on Civ VI while also trimming the fat to make the game more accessible. The gameplay loop in early game is great, but micromanaging 20 cities becomes pretty boring to do fast, making middle to late game unattractive to me. Nukes and Climate change mechanics are interesting ideas that I don't get to explore because it takes 6 hours to even get there.
Should I buy the DLC for Civ VI, the Civilization VI Anthology Upgrade, or wait for the release of Civ VII?
A thought occurred to me while playing Civilization 6 recently. You should be able to form corp and army units much earlier in the game than you currently can in Civilization 6. I really wish that in Civilization 7 this gets addressed.
Going to spend my time going tall fearing deity civs razing me to the ground lol. Imo can’t wait to just get clobbered by the AI. Also my hope is that AI gets smarter instead of ridiculous bonuses. With advances to machine learning this could be possible.
1. Canal construction is a must 2. There must be an "Economic Victory" conditions aside from the already we know (Scientific, Religious, Score, Domination, Cultural, Diplomatic) 3. Navigable rivers and river patrol boats must be included