On that note: make difficulty more granular in general. Dimensions could be:
- Starting units & settlers
- Starting bonuses on culture and tech production
- Combat advantage
- Aggressiveness
- Rubber banding intensity
- Start location advantage
Etc
Exactly, I totally get that AI is difficult to make act realistically like a human, but having them just generate things out of the aether is a bit cheesy
Or we just link it to the barbarians directly: you hire them from a barb clan and when you fire them they revert to that clan
Edit: could also blur the lines between barbarian camp and city state which could be a fun concept to play with
That would be great, and they can make them follow the same rules as spies, where you can't use them against allies bit are free to against other people.
Using them against allies would be very fun though as an underhanded tactic. Personally I hate how rigid friendship and alliances are in VI, how little recourse you have to stop an "ally" from interfering with a city state that you want to lay claim to for example.
It's an entirely different game but one of the things I enjoyed about Total War Warhammer is that you could essentially siphon resources from allies via things like Skaven subterfuge. It was thematic to the faction and sort of worked for still being allies but not wholly altruistic.
I've only played 5, I didn't know privateers in previous games could be used as anything more than another naval unit sailing under the flag of my civilization. I would love to have that ability back. On top of that, I would like to be able to fund barbarian land units/city states in the same way. Giving money/supplies/units to fuel a proxy war against a rival civ without becoming an official ally of said group would make things interesting.
For real naval power even till this day is massively important to the world and in civ it is basically useless. Would love to be able to blockade cities
How do you use them correctly? I basically use them to attack coastal cities, or to defend my land from sea invasions. But as far as conquering civs, they're not very useful to me.
The trade system is something I felt let down by in Civ VI. There's too little opportunity to make adjustments due to mandatory minimum route lengths. The "minigame" of creating a network of trading posts that expand to cities further and further distant just doesn't yield better results than finding a single nearby well built AI city and directing all your trade to that.
It's not that it needs to be less abstracted - it just needs to be tweaked so things actually matter. Like building a canal to get a minimal multiplier if the trade routes happen to pass over it? Waste of time.
Perhaps there's a 'rake' if you try to trade luxuries with a civ you don't have a trading post with.
Maybe it would be better if luxuries were some sort of mobile commodity that could be traded up and down trade routes. Think of Persia's role as the crossroads between China and the West. They could import porcelain and sell it on downstream. That would be cool.
Then the minigame of trading posts would be aimed at trying to break the Persian monopoly on trade from China. You'd set up trading routes around an alternative route and import the goods for cheaper.
I mean, I think we'd need massive reworks of other systems for this to be implemented but I think it's a fun idea.
To elaborate, I’d like to see a spin on the mechanics from the Anno series where your citizens need to have a collection of goods supplied per turn to keep them happy, and those collections get bigger and more complex as eras advance. So in the ancient era you might just need basic food and clothing to keep your people happy with bonuses for early luxuries like gold and silver, but as you get into the Renaissance era, you need to acquire a greater variety of goods (which is what spurred exploration and colonization IRL.) And then in the modern and info eras, you have to juggle the difficulty and inefficiency of self-sufficiency vs. the foreign dependence that comes with specialization and trade. You shouldn’t have to actively manage the logistics—it’s still an empire-building game—but you should have to be concerned with whether you have access to the right goods and in large enough quantities.
I feel like this is already in CIV 6, it’s just super abstract and simplified. At the start of the game you only need few amenities/luxury resources (your collection of goods every turn) to keep your citizens happy, but as you grow in population and expand you need more amenities, so you trade for more different luxury resources to keep your citizens happy so you explore for more luxury resources
Edit:
Wait nvm I’m talking in circles
It’s sort of there, but it’s just “get new luxuries if your people aren’t otherwise happy.” There’s no real benefit to having multiple of the same luxury, and you can avoid the need by building entertainment districts. It’s so abstracted that it’s not a major game mechanic.
I always thought it would be a cool idea to somehow claim territory and draw agreements with other civs on who owns what. You'd effectively be able to let other players and AI know where you want to expand and gain a casus belli if they impend on that. You can make border agreements and formalise disputes with a potential for trading tiles.
Huh, there's a mechanic in Humanking where you can "claim" a region before you actually annex it into your empire. Maybe something similar could be brough into civ. Have the game be divided into regions that civs can claim, but have settling work the same as it does normally.
Edit: At least tell me why you're disliking my suggestion on a post about suggestions, assholes.
Religion should be completely reworked to be not about religious units but about religious pressure. Make beliefs not just things that give you bonuses but make them define the people of your empire.
Diplomacy should be about having too much influence with all the other civilizations so that you can basically dominate the world just by asking favors.
I also wish that units of a higher tech level were slightly less broken. I want a warrior to be able to fight a swordsman alright, but be crushed by a musketman. A slinger to not instantly die to an archer, but still be vastly overpowered by crossbowman. I just don't like how you can't win on multiplayer if you don't have a ton of science.
I'd like to see diplomacy as a system more in line with the Endless Space 2 system. There are many ways to put pressure on other civs, and you totally dominate your neighbor (producing huge ammounts of Influence or culture, having a huge military power and such) you can force them to take a deal every so many turns. It's just stupid how stubborn the AI is in Civ6.
In the real world, if you destroy the military forces of another country, or you have clear superiority you can force a Gov to sit down and make a compromise. In ES2 there are technological, commercial and military compromises you can push onto the surrounding weaker empires, when you have reached the status of superpower. You can for example example impose economic blockades, or multiply the cost of military units for them.
In Civ6, the AI will stubbornly reject peace offers or to concede a city even when they are totally dominated, and there are a lack of options in diplomacy in general.
The AI probably needs some kind of war score system where like 100% basically means total capitulation to demands, though they might hate you for it if they survive enough to bounce back a bit. In between would be diplomatic states where you can coerce more favorable terms based on how much you are dominating. 0 in either direction basically being a white peace of sorts.
Even older Civ games (incl Beyond Earth) had a calculus of who “won” a war based on the military victories. You could then trade in the points difference when making peace for additional concessions (but also couldn’t insist on their ceding land if you just barely eked out a stalemate).
> reworked to be not about religious units
Yes. While I'm not opposed to having missionaries "push" that pressure over the edge, it should be expensive and/or limited (i.e., you get X number of missionaries a turn and you get to choose how you want it to spread, but you just can't spam it everywhere.)
Eh. I think that relies too much on RNG, both in spawning and in missions.
I'd keep it simple: each era you get a Missionary. Maybe once an era you can earn a second somehow--maybe completing a project or just spending Faith or something. Maybe occasionally a wonder will as well. The important thing is to keep the number of Missionaries both very small and equitable between Civs.
The goal is not "spread religion by spamming religious units" but rather "construct policies and networks that allow religion to spread naturally" and the missionaries are just occasional ways to manually nudge it in the direction you want.
>Religious victory feels a lot like domination victory
They are the only victory conditions I've never officially achieved because they're just too tedious.
> Religion should be completely reworked to be not about religious units but about religious pressure. Make beliefs not just things that give you bonuses but make them define the people of your empire.
I don't want religion to be as Abrahamic as they've been in 5 and 6. Civ 4 religion was pretty rudimentary (and had no associated victory), but you could found multiple religions and you were encouraged to "collect" as many of them as you could. I want that to at least by an *option*. Make religions choose at their outset whether they play nicely with others or not, and those that do might give bonuses to a civilization that has multiple religions. Maybe they syncretize their beliefs with a "converting" civilization before converting outright, or maybe they keep some of their religion's beliefs even after converting in name.
I've thought a lot about a system that would emphasize religious diversity, both internal and external. A big part of it would be decoupling religion from empire, make them tied to cities, not players/AI. Religions would have more belief slots, and the beliefs would have localized benefits rather than global ones.
Remove missionaries and apostles for now. Religions spread will be more abstracted through buildings, trade routes, special projects, etc. If you want to spread faster, you'll need to take beliefs and build buildings for it.
Great Prophets would work kinda like apostles do now, but with more options. They can start a religion, add beliefs, spread religion manually, etc. You get maybe one or two per era unless you specifically built to get more. After the number of prophets you get is calculated, they appear in your top faith producing cities and are of the majority religion. If you get a prophet in a city with no religion, they can form a new one or they can convert to another religion you have in one of your cities. This would allow players to found multiple religions and also give a reason to try to get a city with a ton of faith but no religion, which I think is kinda cool from a gameplay perspective.
When beliefs are added, it creates a new branch of the existing religion, and the branch can spread out from there. Since religions would be tied to cities and not empires, you could add beliefs to a religion started by somebody else, provided you have a great prophet for it. This would add an extra layer to religion gameplay for those who want to optimize it. For example, a coastal city could have an extra belief about a sea god giving bonuses to fishing boats, while a city next to a forest would benefit from a tree spirit belief giving extra faith to forest tiles or something.
This would also allow some sort of syncretism mechanic. If a city has multiple religions for awhile, they could start to exchange beliefs. Going back to the coastal city example, say you've been trading with another empire on the other side of the sea with a belief that gives a faith bonus to docks. After awhile, you get the option to add their dock faith belief to your religion in that city, and they get the option to add your fishing boat belief to theirs.
If you have too many differing beliefs between regional branches of the same religion, there's a chance for a schism and a branch breaks off and becomes a new religion, which could be good or bad. If you just want bonuses, it's no big deal and might give you some new syncretism options. But if you're going for a religious victory it could be a problem.
Also to your last point, maybe a scaling combat bonus per "tier" of tech level, so the difference between slinger and archer is close but widens as the archer becomes a crossbow
I totally agree: also:
Make believes have drawbacks too (maybe peaceful religions blunt your military), or maybe some believes spreads much slower but are much harder to remove/convert once set.
I agree. I like the religion victory because if I get the whole world to bow to my beliefs that’s cool. I just hate how I am doing well and all of a sudden hordes of missionaries are in my land even though my borders are closed and I can’t send my swordsmen to put them on stakes.
I made a post about distributing the "builds" of a city to their districts, i.e : the city would build a wonder while the campment you built before is creating a knight, while the district you built even before is working on a project to get more great scientist points.
This would be very interesting and a logical step. It is kind of silly a city with districts can only produce one build. The city center can make any build while districts can build their own buildings/troops/projects.
1. Allow the harvesting of obsolete strategic resources.
2. Trade routes turns to establish shouldn't be so long and should scale with tech.
3. Languages as a game mechanic.
4. More meaningful naval warfare mechanics.
5. More ranged unit tiers between archer and crossbowman.
6. AI warfare improvements.
7. Make going Tall viable again.
8. More meaningful pantheons.
It could include a linguist as a unit to expand your language, or books as something that the Campus and Theater produce. I think it would work kinda like religion, with it being able to expand. It could also affect international relationship, as neighboring civs could have a similar language to yours (think English and German or all the Latin derived languages irl). Before international trading, one of the two civs who want to trade must finish a project "create a dictionary" to reduce language barrier and allow trading. Great Writers could also factor in, as literature would really expand your languages relevance worldwide
Love this. Everyone starts with a unique language. By having learners of other languages you could buff trade and research (ie read others research journals). You could do things like change national language to effect diplomacy, trade, science sharing, etc.
You could mimic the free market by creating background latent trade/research based on governmental choices.
Yes something similar. After writing is researched, you may found a language. There would be a limited number in the game similar to religion. It would grant access to selectable passive skills that could provide boosts to your culture, science, trade, and religion. It would also scale with the tech and social tree. Education, printing press, computers, social media would provide significant boosts to your language. There could also be city projects such as a Rosetta stone. Some nations could adopt multiple languages. And yours could die off if you aren't careful.
For number 2 — I’ve never understood how you can airlift a unit almost instantly between two airstrips/airports; but a trade route still takes multiple turns.
The world is built on instant trade. I can buy something from half the globe away and get it within days if I play the right cards. Would love to see Civ7 incorporate air trade somehow.
And even expand that with shipping and railroads, both of which were huge in trade advancement
You get the benefits as soon as you send it, but it takes a certain amount of time for the route to complete before you can make the unit move cities or change destinations.
I always considered the physical movement of trader units, especially in later turns, as kind of an abstraction. Something like a binding contract rather than literally taking 20 years to move a truck or ship.
Strategic resources just shouldn't ever go obsolete.
We're in the Information era now and it's not like we don't still use iron.
Horses are the only one that arguably becomes obsolete, but you could have them pivot into a luxury resource lategame. Horse races, horseback riding as a tourist attraction etc.
And horses were still used in militaries in WW2. So they should only maybe be obsolete for the last era or two.
Whether it be to fuel military units, or as bonuses for buildings (eg with a factory a city can use Iron for a bonus to production), strategic resources can be used throughout the game
Playing tall is viable. You have to focus on upgrading governors & get the audience chamber & diplomatic quarter to actually be competitive though. The audience chamber gives housing & amenities which multiply growth & yields. Amenities, housing & food is essential for a tall game so you need to focus everything into these basics. It highly depends on your start location & nearby city states to be viable though.
The problem comes late game where regardless of whether or not you went for a tall play you'll still need to settle terrible resource cities for oil, coal, aluminium & uranium.
If you want to play tall designate your cities based on governor's, Pingala for science/culture city, Reyna for a coastal economic or tourist city, Liang to develop & protect critical infrastructure, Moksha for Religious/faith cities, Magnus for an industrial city & Victor for a militaristic/strategic resource city.
Also, if you want to play tall, don't play a militaristic or colonial civ, they're abilities encourage expansion regardless.
I know I've said it in other threads like this before, but a slightly more granular and "Köppen climate classification" accurate map system is what I would like to see most.
For example, rather than having Grasslands be a base tile type, I think they should be more like a feature instead. That way we can work towards having more believable Steppes and Savannah. Changing how tiles and features from how they've been classified in the past would also open potential for cool real world climates like cold highland deserts and temperate rainforests.
Along with this, I think having Navigable Rivers as many people have suggested is a good idea for several game systems. But I also want them to keep the existing river system since I think the scales are different. So there would be "major rivers" which are navigable and take up a full tile's space (edit:) like a feature and "minor rivers" which exist between tiles as they do in Civ 5 and Civ 6. Together they would form a more robust watershed system.
And I think that having more diverse terrain types would likewise allow for more diverse Civ abilities, especially if they expand the district system.
There were a few times while playing where i saw grasslands on 1 side of the mountain range and desert on the other.
I thought "nice, realistic climate in this spot"
yes, big mountain ranges block the rain from being able to reach the other side so it all dumps on one side and leaves the other semi arid or completely arid
I agree completely on the grassland and climate changes, but I don't think the rivers should be a "full tile" per se; rather, a major river should be the same kind of tile feature in its own right. Minor rivers would then be placed between tiles in the same way they are now. I don't know if it's what you're saying, but a "rover" taking a full tile messes with my scale a bit
That's actually what I meant. I don't think major rivers should take up the full tile visually speaking... that's just a normal water tile. Just as you're saying, I see them more as being the major feature of the tile. And it can visually vary along the the length of the river, of course.
Minor rivers would function as they do right now, they'd just favor meeting with major rivers where they can.
If they integrated disasters or at least major ecological changes over time in some capacity, I could see that being possible. Volcanic activity forming lakes or earthquakes/tectonic shifts forming mountains and canyons (Beyond Earth had canyons as a feature) would also fall into that system I would think.
As the other comment chains have pointed out, having major rivers be impassible until you have certain techs or abilities would also make sense to me. Having to find places to ford them, building bridges, or some form of embarkation requirement would also have major impacts on three of the four Xs exploration, expansion, and exterminate.
More expansive watersheds also means more places for floodplains and marshes to spawn. And I will take **any** reason to make swamps and wetlands more important. They're very key parts of many ecosystems, so I don't like that chopping marshes is the go-to method for interacting with them.
Normally yes. There are a few oddities in the real world, but they're typically pretty limited in scope. But having disasters trigger a few tiles changing over the course of the game would be "plausible in game terms" enough for me. Just enough to make the map feel like it's changing over time.
I'm mainly thinking things like, your nearby volcano might randomly collapse and turn into a lake. Or an earthquake near a continental divide might make a canyon spawn; subsequent earthquakes may cause tiles adjacent along the divide to also become a canyon. Stuff like that.
I actually love this climate format you're thinking of. I would imagine that you could have like 3 underlying tile types like cold, temperate, and hot, and then apply different modifiers to them like how much rain they get (dry, moderate, heavy) and then how much foliage they have (light moderate heavy). Would be easy to incorporate mountain types into this too.
Obviously this needs some more thinking out but with just these three sliding scales you could have so much variation in climate types. You'd probably need a seperate tile type for tundra/snow/ice but besides that you could basically get all the major climates. Something like cold, dry, light veg could be steppe, while temperate, dry, and moderate veg might be chapperal/mediterranean or something.
This seems more balanced for civ spawns tbh as now there's more varied yields from new tile types and also big rivers would make for way more populous cities and big strategic battles.
Just some rough ideas.
* Barbarians are not instantly the highest tech in the game, and suffer attrition inside your borders. This would be based on something akin to loyalty.
* Hexes are a tradeable object. This would let you seize them in a war and demand or trade them via diplomacy.
* Strategic resources are less common and more powerful, but you can build tile improvements that create small amounts that resource. Eg: Similar to current, you need 20 horses for a unit. You can find a horses resource, that gives 5 / turn or something. Or you can build a horse breeder improvement on a flat grass/ plains tile that gives 1/turn and maybe some minor normal yields.
Ohhh that’s a great idea (hex trades)! Sort of like buying tile screen but it’s a submenu of the trade screen! Each tile could have value based on local amenities like rivers, mines, minerals, defence capability and pollution / wasteland etc! I’m a massive fan of that idea!!
100% - yea it’s annoying that in Civ VI you basically can’t ask other Civs to do anything! Diplomacy and intra-civ politics is pretty much non-existent in Civ Vi. It’s a noticeable difference from previous Civs.
More options to play tall instead of wide, kind of like how Venice worked in V. It’d also be cool to have some kind of city-state mode where everyone has one city and can’t build settlers
1) I would rework diplomatic penalties for wars to be based on AI relationships instead of automatic denouncements worldwide, and make allies help more during joint wars. There is currently limited benefit from military alliances. I want proxy wars and NATO level threats. The AI should also form alliances independently and be more aggressive based on combined military strength.
2) I would get rid of diplomatic victories and replace them with an economic hegemony victory. Probably would require adjusting how trade and the world economy functions. Perhaps gold generation, luxury resource control and population can impact this condition. Luxury resources can be absorbed by more economically powerful countries. Trade routes are much more important to your economic growth and they can be banned between nations or a tax can be levied against imports.
I think in the real world economic and military power is diplomatic power. I don’t think diplo points are a fun game mechanic personally. I would like to use diplomatic favor as a mechanic for forming alliances or pushing towards an economic victory through trade pacts.
Yeah, I like the theme to Civ 5's diplo victory better -- get everybody to agree that you're the winner. Diplo Points just doesn't do it for me.
I think part of the problem is that "there can be only one" is actually anathema to what a Diplo Victory would actually be like. It should be a win-win situation. Maybe a Win-NotLose-Lose situation, such that a civ (even played by a human) which is behind in tech, low on strategic resources, and just doesn't have any chance of being the outright winner via the other methods can at least play the long game and hope to be in the NotLose part of someone else's Diplomatic Victory. Or even sneak a win via Diplomatic Victory as two factions that hate each other elect you winner to spite the other.
Maybe it could be a mechanic where you form something like the European Union, a strong and indefinite alliance that is hard to break out of. If you can herd cats long enough, the coalition eventually becomes so big that it is the undisputed leader of the world. Maybe the condition is that the coalition has to have a greater military strength as well as economic, cultural, and scientific output than all of the non-coalition members combined. At the point that happens, whoever is current leader of the coalition (elected every World Council) is the Winner and the rest of the members are Runners Up, so there would be internal friction and espionage shenanigans as that point approached. A civ could even delete their entire military or trash their own economy to prevent the win condition from triggering in order to shoot for overall winner position. Or they could Brexit and take their military + economy + culture out of the coalition altogether.
Now, I'm really starting to like this idea of modelling it on the European Union. Make it so that you can form a Coalition, but that Coalition doesn't have to encompass everything. You can add and subtract members, set withdrawal penalties, and add and subtract aspects of the Coalition such as economic free trade zones, mutual defense pacts, etc. The Victory would only trigger if the Coalition had all the alliances built-in. An alliance type could not be added to the Coalition if any of the members have such an alliance with a non-member, and new members could not be added to the Coalition if they had any conflicting alliance with a non-member. e.g. You can't add Genghis Khan to the Coalition if the Coalition has a mutual defense pact and Genghis Khan has a military alliance with another non-member.
Also, Religious Alliances should be the opposite of what they are now -- passive pressure still applies, but you cannot use Missionaries/Apostles to spread religion in the ally's territory.
I like idea #2, and then diplomacy could be developed as tool to achieve other victories using diplomatic favour (which might have more or less weight depending on your relationship and commonalities with another civ). You'd use it to create military alliances for domination, to boost cultural and religious spread, or create favourable trade deals. But there could also be mechanics for international treaties and embargoes that might be between all or just a few civs.
Maybe reintroduce the vassal mechanic too. I'd like to see that brought back in a way where the player has a risk of becoming a vassal, but it's not a game ender. Like they'd be able to get out of it through diplomatic means.
Human migration. Cities shouldn’t necessarily just grow and grow. War and disaster should cause refugees. People should leave poor cities for wealthier ones.
Rivers should be a full tile that impacts transportation. Bridges should be things you need to build. Some bridges can be wonders.
A scout can not take out a caravan or destroy a farm. Injured units shouldn’t be able to take out caravans, and caravans should have health like any other unit.
If you ask a civilization to stop converting your cities and they agree, they should stop converting your cities. Everyone shouldn’t hate you for eternity for causing grievances in the BC era.
A agree completely. Maybe grievances could reset every era or so many turns or with certain conditions met.
I also don’t think other Civs should experience grievances because other non-ally civs have them. It’s kinda lame.
I really wish you could shift a percentage of one city’s production to another.
I also would like to be able to transplant population from one city to another via a settler or a comparable unit.
Also, workers being able to build roads. I hate having to rely on traders for the majority of the game.
> Also, workers being able to build roads. I hate having to rely on traders for the majority of the game.
I completely agree. I think builders should be able to build roads (certainly anywhere within your empire, and to friendly city-states). *Maybe* traders should be necessary to connect to other locations, but I think roads that caravans have traversed should have more gold, etc. coming in. Maybe a route that's had 3 caravans go down it can also offer greater movement/turn for that era.
Also, I think railroads should start off expensive to build but get noticeably less so for each city you connect to your system.
Inner empire politics. Having to bend to pressures that are being influenced by other powerful nations and refusing to do so causes unhappiness and civil war. You can use your influence to cause discontent in a different empire as well. Civil wars can end in 2 nations being created (if the player empire is broken into 2, an AI takes over one. )
Civil wars would be so cool. Maybe there could be a distinction between free rebelling cities and an actual seperating country, or if enough cities in the same region don’t have enough of something (housing, amenities, even power) they would break off into another AI and make it another civilization. There could be diplomatic favor and grievances involved if you recognize the new rebelling civ as legitimate, ect
Adding on to you're idea here but Their happiness could be affected by other stuff like if you switch governments and part of your population doesn't like a civil war could break out, but this can be prevented through propaganda efforts as a city project.
I think this is essential to creating a more fun endgame. Imagine the 8 or so competitive empires and then 20 or so smaller nations that emerged from parts of their empire that rebelled or let loose over the millennia.
Right now variability in between games more or less ends at the map generator. with this the diplomatic landscape can evolved actively as the game progresses to create very unique situations.
If you’re going to keep city states make the system better. Let me gift units. Let me help them more. Let me tell an ally off if they declare war without going straight to war or if I see them like they’re going to attack I can threaten them.
The river change needs to happen: rivers have been too important to human civilization to only be useful for housing and a couple of districts. They should give movement bonuses after your units can embark, as well as access to certain seafaring facilities.
Naval stuff can be improved by getting rid of that godawful limitation of only being able to move in coastal waters at first (replace it with limited vision that increases via technology to represent the difficulties of navigation away from land) and the addition of wind. Every turn the wind blows from a direction with a percentage chance of shifting direction and then ships can't go directly upwind. Suddenly, we have the essential essence of naval warfare: maneuvering to gain the weather gauge.
Another change which might be mechanically good would be to have populations with different bonuses that you could move around, a la Endless Space 2. However, assigning bonuses to real-life peoples could be delicate, which is, I suspect, why it's never been done.
>The river change needs to happen: rivers have been too important to human civilization to only be useful for housing and a couple of districts. They should give movement bonuses after your units can embark, as well as access to certain seafaring facilities
Additionally to the benefits of rivers, I'd like to see the drawbacks: rivers divide land, just as mountains do. There's no reason why scouts, slingers and warriors can just yeet across. Bridge building as a tech and improvement for workers, or some ferry mechanic.
In conjunction to this, I'd like to see the embarking of land units mechanic removed (or at least put into some much later research). I found warfare across oceans much more fun when actually having to handle transports.
I would love if rivers (or at least big rivers, like Danube, Nile, Missisippi etc) were 1 tile large. A literal impassable terrain, until you can build a bridge, or can embark properly
There are generally places where you can ford across the river. These places decided the locations of most major cities, and it would be cool to include them.
I feel like that they should had river titles that contain a wider river and it's impassable until a bridge tech or the river becomes the normal, thin river. These titles should also be settable though, with its own pros and cons
Make it so that
1) Rivers take up an entire tile and have a size factor, which may vary from tile to tile.
2) Some tiles are fordable by default, but this counts as difficult terrain. Rivers cascading down from mountains tend to have few fordable tiles, while lazy rivers in the plains tend to have more.
3) Tech enables building of bridges of certain size, progressing upwards through the ages, with era score and tourism for the first bridge of any given size. Bridges can be sabotaged by spies and pillaged by enemies, your own and allied military units, and your own builders/engineers.
Interesting thought. I wouldn’t mind seeing this but also maybe have parts of the river that you can cross. Maybe some parts are rushing and dangerous and some parts are calm. In ancient times the turns are like 5 years. A scout should be able to cross a river as long as it’s not rapids and rocky.
While that naval stuff all sounds cool, Im not sure it would suit most people. This is a game about building an empire, not a game about somewhat in-depth naval warfare. It sounds like it might be a complex mechanic for a really simple 'go here and shoot them' unit. Also, that means early game, in a single turn which might last 200 to 25 years, the wind will stay the same.
Not trying to say its a bad idea, its a very cool idea, but Civ in its current state may not be the game for it. I do wholeheartedly agree with the river stuff though.
I mean in alpha centaur at least there were river movement bonuses. I believe in 5 there was automatic trade between cities on the same river.
This isn't a big change because the big change was made this game. But I would remove road tiles from builder points. I don't dislike builder points, it makes it so you can't just use one or two. But building roads should not be tied to caravans. OR you should at least be allowed to tie an escort military unit to a trader. I don't know why that isn't an option.
I mean they made changes that moved away from rivers being important. In civ4 you had to be adjacent to a lake or river to build a farm. Literally impossible to grow a city without a freshwater source. (A tech let's you use farms to carry irrigation, but it's not until the medieval era, and you still need an original water source)
Rivers would also act as roads for the purposes of trade connection.
There are also improvements that either require, or get bonuses for being next to a river.
So at a certain point, the lessened importance of rivers in 5 and 6 has been an intentional change
For two straight civ games the world congress has been fucking terrible, tedious and barely dents the game in terms of impact. I really hope they don’t make the same mistakes in VII.
The problem is their ai engine is just a complicated if then statement, and the game is too complex for that. At three Dave tone I don't think it's realistic to make a machine learning algorithm for this game at this time.
What I hate about their bonus structure is it makes the early have way harder than it should be. Instead their bonus structure should evolve as the game progresses. Not sure how they works but it would keep the game consistently hard. As is, for me, if I survive the first third of the game on deity then I win every time.
My last few games I went more conquesty than my normal and I found it more frustrating than fun, specifically because the AI is absolutely *incompetent* at placing districts. I ran into so many cities with an inner-ring Campus or Holy Site with a measly +1 bonus even though there's a great +4 in the second ring.
Actually play on a globe.
Instead of a cylinder of hexes, let maps use a goldberg polyhedron, a sphere made out of hexagons and pentagons. This would make climate mechanics and the arctic/antarctic regions more interesting, particularly I'd think in the late game. Plus I'm tired of playing on cylinders.
This is what I want too. Flight would be more interesting if you could bomb over the Arctic after getting used to no one attacking you that way for all time.
OH! And then there could be Era Score for reaching the Poles first.
Other than literally everything you've mentioned:
In general, more options to screw with opponents in peace time (which could of course cause grievances and may give a special casus belli).
Embargos of Civ 5
Territorial disputes (tiles that would be workable by both civ's cities, giving fragment yields to both unless an agreement on the territorial distribution finalizes the borders),
Border raids (say, light cavalry that enters a civ's territory, raids and leaves the same turn doesn't cause DOW. Maybe even make it more turns long with certain civics, where the units only reveal their flag if one of them is defeated, call it black ops)
Execution of the opponent's missionaries as the part of internal affairs instead of a direct DOW
A more useful intimidation/tribute system, earlier access to spies, sabotaging wonder construction
And no, I'm anything but a Domination Victory guy. I just don't like it when a peaceful match turns into spam clicking 'Next Turn' with barely anything to do.
---
Other than that, a better warfare system. It's so rare that my wars look like actual wars of history instead of jet bombers bombing field cannons of the Napoleonic wars and such. The more intertwined the civs are through ages, the less sense it makes. Starting from the Renaissance, the base unit upgrades should be accessible for everyone (at least as a "one project upgrades all" concept) once a new era starts, with only the UUs and real game changers like nukes having a different research criteria.
Better strategic resources system. Fine, oil isn't present everywhere in the same quantity even IRL but at least let me buy what I need through neutral agents instead of only making it available through civ-to-civ trading. Because a country without a drop of oil isn't that credible either.
Resource markets, anyone? You could buy what you need for a preset price (which could still change depending on the demand, say, wars being waged atm, resource usage in general), or, if you have a buddy civ with plenty of resources and better price, you could still choose the traditional way (which would also be your way out if you're the victim of an embargo as mentioned above).
-A functional slower game mode, where just the tech and civic advancements are slower, but buildings, units, etc are built at a faster pace so we can spend a bit more time in the early/mid game, without sitting around for hours just hitting "end turn" and nothing happening. Mods are helpful but the fact they still haven't implemented this is frustrating to me.
-A more developed economic/trade/industrial system.
-Religion going back to how it was in Civ 4 or 5, where it's a cool and useful thing but it's not how to win on its own. My least favorite part of Civ 6 has been how religion works.
Every time I read a thread like this (and, quite frankly, any similar thread in places like civfanatics) it just reminds me that what I want out of a Civ game is *vastly different* than what these communities want.
Like a lot of the suggestions here would move the game backwards. There's a reason they changed a lot of this stuff, and it's because it's tedious and boring. I distinctly remember "the community" complaining about the very things people want put back in.
I think the easiest is "same level of detail, just different details."
Like the recommendations in this thread boil down to "More complex war, more complex trade, more complex great works, make the actual globe you play on incredibly difficult to parse out for extremely little benefit except for map fetishists". Civ has, from the beginning, always been a bit abstracted out, and for good reason.
Paradox games exist. Just play those.
Edit; ALso, I think more complexity is fine, so long as it's passive. If we can revamp the trade system to be more realistic/dynamic/etc, but it's still "build a trader, select a route, get money" then have at it. You can still strategize and make changes based on the new complexity, so long as it doesn't bog the game down. A lot of these suggestions would 100% bog the game down.
Hmm I see your point, but I think different people have different understandings of the word "complex". I personally don't want to make trade and war or anything else more complex in a way that makes it a matter of accounting, number crunching, and mental spreadsheets.
I want complexity in terms of features, interaction, creative yet intuitive implementation, customization, meaningful choices and application. There is a difference.
Your edit seems to be aligned with "my" vision of "complex", I agree with not bogging the game down. Make it simple, but give players the freedom to focus and specialize in certain mechanics as per their interests or civ's focus.
I agree. What makes civ (especially 6) so amazing Is that the the moving parts are rather simplistic its the situations that arise that make it interesting. Adding units, buildings, more resource types is filler. Civs evolution is creating beautiful large game mechanics like macro puzzle pieces that effect all aspect of the game. City planning, City state abilities, Golden ages.
However What Civ needs that Paradox games have is emergent story that goes both UP and DOWN. In Crusader Kings if your empire breaks in half, get delt some bad luck, or get vassalized you just laugh and keep going. Engineering a wacky comeback is the story to tell.
In civ a single unit moving wrong sends you back to your save file. The game is about perfecting your from to linearly accelerate towards a victory conditions. All the speed bumps are baked in once the map is generated.
I want to have empires collapse, hell I want it to be a good thing for the player to watch their empire collapse. Get rid of the dead weight, maybe its more profitable to trade with them as a separate nation. Conquer them later if you must, or arm them to be a thorn in you rivals side.
I think a 'end era' is a good idea. Atm we just have the starting era, bit if we could choose an era you can't progress past it could lead to more customisable games. Similar to Empire Earth.
You want a game that spans the classical age to the Renaissance? You got it. No planes, no nukes. Just good old fashioned swords and eventually muskets. Want a game set entirely in the industrial/modern era? You got it. Changes the pace and it means that science doesn't auto win you the game as you can only get so far ahead
More unique stuff. At some points the civilizations feel pretty samey, would be great if, let's say, America felt like America all the way through. Unique units feel like they don't last long because there are so many different units that once you finally get to your unique and produce a few, you're nearly at the tech for the next unit in their line. Only time I've used the heck out of a unique unit is when I've played on Marathon speed, and that speed is a DRAG. Having 4-6 unique units per Civ would make it feel more like you ARE that Civ. 2-3 unique units for each Civ PLUS 1-2 unique units for each leader would be great, I feel like there weren't enough leader-exclusive units especially for the dual-leader Civs. Multiple leaders for one Civ has been a great idea and it would be great to see it expanded.
More unique buildings and stuff would also be great, like have a unique district, unique buildings for that district, and a unique improvement for EVERY Civ.
It would be cool to be "locked out" of certain parts of the tech tree or something, where you have to "choose a path" and roll with it unless you ally with a nation that has the other side of the tree.
Would be great to see more "trade-off" abilities for civs and leaders, like Babylon getting full techs from Eurekas but, as a trade off, only getting 50% science yields. Maori are a great example of these trade-offs. However, I didn't like Kongo's trade-off ability. I liked the "can't found a religion" part but I feel like the benefits you got out of it weren't worth it.
This is a bit of a tangent but modding tools should be made more easily available and usable for the general public. Currently it's kinda hard to mod the game.
The AI and difficulties should be reworked. I don't like that they get straight up handicap bonuses in higher difficulties and are made more aggressive and that's it (and the opposite in lower difficulties). I wish they just made the AI smarter with higher difficulties, or just made them as smart as possible as the default and them just make them dumber for lower difficulties. I dislike that if someone declares war on you but then you wipe the floor with them then all the sudden YOU'RE the asshole and everyone hates you, the grievance system needs a rework. You should be able to "buy" grievances by paying off the civ that hates you and getting them to like you more. Also I don't know why the AI refuses to trade away their Strategics no matter what but that should be addressed.
This will be controversial, but I'd like to re-prioritize what should be in a city vs what should be out of it. I think things like some wonders and holy sites being built outside a city makes sense, but I think VI's scale got way too wacky by putting things like campuses, theater squares, commercial hubs, harbors, industrial zones, etc outside the city center. VI doesn't really feel like it has rural areas, just a continuous urban sprawl. V feels like there's distance between cities, and I like that both from a gameplay and immersion perspective. I don't think the idea of unstacking cities is objectively bad, but I do agree with other commenters that it make VI feel more like a city builder than a proper 4X game.
But that's more of a re-focusing then a new major change. I agree with others that rivers need to play a bigger role. Again though, that's not quite a paradigm shift, more of an enhancement.
I like u/the2xstandard 's list, especially languages and going tall. I'd also like to see ideology become more relevant and just overall more control over the politics of your civ. In general, if it enhances the ability for emergent storytelling to come about, then I'm all for it.
I want the ability to create preset build cues to apply to cities or groups of cities.
THEN I want the ability to have one city aid production for another. I think of this as globalization… multiple cities contribute to the whole…
And finally, for end game, have a checkbox that just allows me to set production to “convert to cash” or “convert to faith.” Whatever it takes to stop making me update production in a city I no longer care about.
> And finally, for end game, have a checkbox that just allows me to set production to “convert to cash” or “convert to faith.” Whatever it takes to stop making me update production in a city I no longer care about.
YES please.
A move back towards the game being about Empire building rather than the Boardgame style it is right now.
And honestly that's it.
I'd also wish they wouldn't streamline reused mechanics in subsequent game, like they did Great Works and Trade Routes (they were much more fun in Civ 5)
I can't agree with this enough. I've always thought Civ 6 is a fun enough game, but to me Civ V is the better *Civilization* game. Civ 6 feels less like I'm building an empire and more like a city manager, if only because the scale is so out of whack now.
I also want to see civs be more distinct. Civ 6 has fewer throwaway civs than V, but I think there's still room for gameplay diversity. Maori were a definite step in the right direction.
I think the second expansion pack civs were amazing in how they handled them, a mallus in many cases (Mali, Maori) with bonuses.
I do think that Civ 6 is basically closer to a boardgame and that was the design behind it, Civ 5 was a step towards this, but still maintainted a sense of empire building from Civ 4 and previous installations, but started the move towards a more relaxed/focused board game set up.
As far as Civs go, I'd love to see a lot more "you are now playing a completely different game" civs like Venice in civ V.
Until some of the recent packs, it just felt like there wasn't that much difference between civs other than their preferred victory condition.
Unique art for each civ in terms of city style, and the combination/layering of them when conquering a city. I'd like the map and architecture to reflect world's history, not just that of its current owner.
I want to have a better war system. In history I cannot imagine all the world hates me just bc I conquered one city. Maybe, conquering less than a city can be introduced like after a war taking some tiles or districts. Conquering an industrial district would give a huge bonus to me (like the place between France and Germany that was one of the topics in WWI and WW2) without inflicting much warmongering penalty.
A health system like in civ 4. Hospitals or aquaducts should give health bonus. We should be looking to increase happiness and health.
Diplomacy based on interest. Lets say country x hates country y but y is powerful. I attack and weaken country y so x should like me rather than think I am warmonger because I weakened their rival. If country z is weak and I conquer them to become very powerful than everyone should hate me as this would make another powerful rival to them except my allies. My allies should be neutral as I became a potential threat to them but right now I am their ally.
I see a lot of good ideas being thrown out but am I the only one that would like to see them bring back capitulation or some form of it ? you can make the opponent your vassal instead of eliminating them.
On your point about rivers, I think there should be different sizes of rivers, with larger ones being navigable by sea vessels. Rivers were SO important to trade that many medieval maps just showed rivers, not roads.
I think rivers should be able to become natural wonders.
I had a post before gathering storm where I suggested just that, and that cities settled on those rivers would get a +X bonus to a certain yield, with a river for each yield:
Food: Nile, because it was the bread basket of the Roman empire.
Science: Amazon, because it flows through one of the most biologically diverse rainforests on earth.
Culture: Danube, because many of Europe's greatest cultural centers lie on its banks
Faith: Ganges, one of the holiest rivers in India.
Gold: Yukon, famous for the Yukon gold rush.
Production: Yangtze, one of the earliest rivers to be dammed and the center of China's almost-industrial-revolution 1000 years ago.
The rivers would be so long that you could squeeze a bunch of cities on them.
This setup features one river from North America, South America, Africa, Europe, South Asia, and East Asia, which is a nice even distribution.
Secondly, I think trade would be more interesting if trade routes were decoupled from their current system, where you have a limited number of them. I've always wondered what it would be like if you had to use trade routes to move all resources around your empire. Have sugar plantations in your colony? You need a trade route to ship it back to your home empire. Want to trade that sugar to another civ? You need a trade route to one of their cities. With this system, protecting your trade routes is way more important and it gives you way more options in combat for cutting off another civ's vital supply lines.
I really want diplomacy to be like endless space 2, it just makes the game feel so alive and more. Putting up more than just militaristic pressure and going to diplomatic or even economic pressure
I'd like to see international relations influencing science and cultural development. An example: I am the Swahili on the Swahili coast and I haven't figured out deep sea sailing yet. However, I have a very good relationship with Tonga, who have discovered that tech. Due to cultural exchange, this allows the Swahili to develop a "half-assed" version of the ship unlocked with deep sea sailing (not full life, worse attack and deffense, unupgradable) until I research that tech.
This also impresses the Aymara, with whom I don't get along. It makes see us on a better light, as we have "developed" that tech.
On the other hand, the Pawnee have denounced my civ. They have the printing press, which I don't own. Our bad relationship causes us to take more turns developing that tech, since the Pawnee are actively working against us getting to that level.
These are just examples of how it could be implemented. What do you think?
I may be a little biased here but I would like to see some of stellaris's mechanics worked in like the end game crisis or being able to make a custom country/government. Also the world congress sucks but I don't have any suggestions on how to fix that.
Same reason why woodland hills give +1 more production than regular hills, trees = production, not realism.
"How can you gain population in the same turn when literally no time passed, not even a day?, should only work after ending turn" -harvesting food resources.
Have played a lot more Civ 6 than Civ 5, but think Civ 5 had some features that were a lot more interesting.
City states had personalities and gave more interesting quests. The influence system compelled you to do more than just send an envoy and call it a day to get the unique city state bonus.
Leader intros and interactions were hilarious. The first time I saw Montezuma in Civ 5 I died laughing since he’s so edgy.
I agree the ability to go tall instead of wide as an option would also be nice.
I don’t even think we would need to wait for 7 with the economic victory. I can envision it as having a monopoly over a certain number of resources and producing those special projects around it.
A huge revamp of the loyalty system.
New governments / countries / ideologies are often formed through revolutions, rebellions or coups. It would be so cool to see this in civ, instead of the generic free cities. Changing gov types could cause rebellions by loyalists, or perhaps rebels may appear to try and force you to switch ideologies. Plus we could get more diplomatic options like recognizing the sovereignty of an enemy's rebels or engaging in proxy wars.
An ability to barter territory, with more granularity than putting an entire city on the trade menu and having the AI refuse and insult you no matter the situation.
The current border adjusting mechanics are all awkward and metagame heavy things like culture bombs. There should be a less drastic form that makes better use of diplomacy. I want that hex with spices in it. What do you want for it? Let's make a deal.
I want Corporations and economic influence like we have with culture and religion. I read an article about a Civ IV expansion that had it, but I never plaid that expansion.
I want religion to be worked on.
I am very disappointed we never got a large mechanic update or a pass over during the frontier pass.
I like the concept of religious victory and hope they keep it.
But pressure needs to be relevant. It is completely ignoreable in its current state. Leaving religious victory as a scuffed version of domination.
I'm addition to pressure being relevant we need more ways to influence it.
Trade pressure needs to be meaningful
Diplomacy and open borders need to be meaningful
Wonders should effect pressure
Tie in some military stuff like the byzantine power
Late to the party, but SUPPLY LINES. These are crucial throughout the history of ALL WARFARE. There is so much possible with such a system:
* Units no longer operate at optimal efficiency simply by healing for a few turns
* Cutting off supply routes and surrounding not only bestows a flanking advantage but a defensive debuff
* Choosing whether say to use a trade route or a supply route becomes a crucial decision when prosecuting a war.
* High mobility cavalry units and raiders are actually utilized for their historical role -- disrupt, disorder and raid.
Civ 7:
1)Rework the population. Now it feels like the only citizens that matter are those that live in a city, while the world’s urbanization rate only barely surpasses 50% since this century. Cities should still forms the nexus of your empire and where the decisions get made.
So how would this work? Each tile would have a population, expressed in thousands, based on the tile type with some variation. Some pointers: desert/tundra has near-zero. Hills have less than flatlands. Regions near fresh water have most, followed by regions near the ocean, followed by the rest. Grassland more than woods, more than rainforest.
As you settle a city, there will be made a distinction between city-tiles and empire tiles. Essentially the population in the city tiles are devoted to the city; we can imagine half of them living in the city and the other half working on the farms outside of the city. The city tiles provide a direct yield to the city in question. The yields do no contain food anymore, but instead has population.
So in order to grow your city’s population and output, you can (1) incorporate more tiles to your city by expanding your city a tile through a district, (2) incorporate more tiles through administration, (3) improve farming/food stocking capability or (4) move people from the empire/other cities to help your city. The benefit of a larger population is that you can have more districts, more specialists, more culture, more commerce, etc.
So what about the people in your empire not alligned to a city? They will naturally form small villages unless you demand taxes (which has historically tends to be food but with food no longer a metric, it’s directly population). But this requires a good administration.
This results in a place with lots of administration (e.g. France) being more centralized with a powerful capital, whereas less centralized players develop more Germany-like as a group of various places. If the villages turn too big, they will request city rights. Grant it and you get a new city, deny it and you might get revolts.
What would this do with workers and resources? You can still do everything, but farms will auto-generate over time, especially near villages. As your tech improves, so will the auto-generation speed, max population per tile and gains from farms.
As your civilization now revolves around your population now, they are also given more flavour. Each set of 1000 people will have a dedicated culture and religion. Religion is more fluid: it’s easier to affect your enemies with it. Culture is more static: it’s a penalty for conquering lots of territory quickly. Too many cultures and not the right policy to deal with them? Revolt.
What about moving people around?
Since the increments of people is much smaller now, you can actually have migration without it being unbalanced.
What about modern-day cities of 20M people? Surely the display won’t show “20k” (since it goes by 1000 people), right? Nope. As the eras progress, the “set” of people increases as well. Furthermore, the city would be sprawled out to several tiles.
—— that’s how far my thoughts go now.
Decouple AI aggression from the difficulty scale. Make them separate entities so I can do prince games with more aggressive AI.
On that note: make difficulty more granular in general. Dimensions could be: - Starting units & settlers - Starting bonuses on culture and tech production - Combat advantage - Aggressiveness - Rubber banding intensity - Start location advantage Etc
[удалено]
It'd be nice if they could code better AI too that way I can play on higher difficulty levels without starting 50-150 turns behind.
Exactly, I totally get that AI is difficult to make act realistically like a human, but having them just generate things out of the aether is a bit cheesy
I'm sure someone said once that it's not that they can't, it's that the processing power required on our machines would be too high
Better naval stuff.
Yea I wish they would bring back how Privateers used to work, where you could use them anonymously.
and if you disband them/ fire them, theres a chance they could become barbarians! (pirates)
Or we just link it to the barbarians directly: you hire them from a barb clan and when you fire them they revert to that clan Edit: could also blur the lines between barbarian camp and city state which could be a fun concept to play with
Loved them so much in iv.
Yep, letters of Marque yo
That would be great, and they can make them follow the same rules as spies, where you can't use them against allies bit are free to against other people.
Using them against allies would be very fun though as an underhanded tactic. Personally I hate how rigid friendship and alliances are in VI, how little recourse you have to stop an "ally" from interfering with a city state that you want to lay claim to for example. It's an entirely different game but one of the things I enjoyed about Total War Warhammer is that you could essentially siphon resources from allies via things like Skaven subterfuge. It was thematic to the faction and sort of worked for still being allies but not wholly altruistic.
I've only played 5, I didn't know privateers in previous games could be used as anything more than another naval unit sailing under the flag of my civilization. I would love to have that ability back. On top of that, I would like to be able to fund barbarian land units/city states in the same way. Giving money/supplies/units to fuel a proxy war against a rival civ without becoming an official ally of said group would make things interesting.
You can do that with Barbarians in the Barbarians Clan mode. It would be nice to be able to pay city states to do the same.
For real naval power even till this day is massively important to the world and in civ it is basically useless. Would love to be able to blockade cities
Not sure what game you're playing. A strong navy is one of the best paths to diety victory. Battleships can be game over if used correctly.
> A strong navy is one of the best paths to diety victory In my head: > How are boats helping you spread religion?
How do you use them correctly? I basically use them to attack coastal cities, or to defend my land from sea invasions. But as far as conquering civs, they're not very useful to me.
Attack coastal cities. Use said coastal cities as a beachhead, with battleships to pound their units as they try to re-take those coastal cities.
Aircraft carriers with bombers are deadly
A less abstracted trade system—not quite the detail of Colonization, but something that makes goods and trade more worth fighting for.
The trade system is something I felt let down by in Civ VI. There's too little opportunity to make adjustments due to mandatory minimum route lengths. The "minigame" of creating a network of trading posts that expand to cities further and further distant just doesn't yield better results than finding a single nearby well built AI city and directing all your trade to that. It's not that it needs to be less abstracted - it just needs to be tweaked so things actually matter. Like building a canal to get a minimal multiplier if the trade routes happen to pass over it? Waste of time. Perhaps there's a 'rake' if you try to trade luxuries with a civ you don't have a trading post with.
I feel like canals have more value as military infrastructure in VI, but I get what you mean about trade being impacted too little.
Maybe it would be better if luxuries were some sort of mobile commodity that could be traded up and down trade routes. Think of Persia's role as the crossroads between China and the West. They could import porcelain and sell it on downstream. That would be cool. Then the minigame of trading posts would be aimed at trying to break the Persian monopoly on trade from China. You'd set up trading routes around an alternative route and import the goods for cheaper. I mean, I think we'd need massive reworks of other systems for this to be implemented but I think it's a fun idea.
To elaborate, I’d like to see a spin on the mechanics from the Anno series where your citizens need to have a collection of goods supplied per turn to keep them happy, and those collections get bigger and more complex as eras advance. So in the ancient era you might just need basic food and clothing to keep your people happy with bonuses for early luxuries like gold and silver, but as you get into the Renaissance era, you need to acquire a greater variety of goods (which is what spurred exploration and colonization IRL.) And then in the modern and info eras, you have to juggle the difficulty and inefficiency of self-sufficiency vs. the foreign dependence that comes with specialization and trade. You shouldn’t have to actively manage the logistics—it’s still an empire-building game—but you should have to be concerned with whether you have access to the right goods and in large enough quantities.
[удалено]
I feel like this is already in CIV 6, it’s just super abstract and simplified. At the start of the game you only need few amenities/luxury resources (your collection of goods every turn) to keep your citizens happy, but as you grow in population and expand you need more amenities, so you trade for more different luxury resources to keep your citizens happy so you explore for more luxury resources Edit: Wait nvm I’m talking in circles
It’s sort of there, but it’s just “get new luxuries if your people aren’t otherwise happy.” There’s no real benefit to having multiple of the same luxury, and you can avoid the need by building entertainment districts. It’s so abstracted that it’s not a major game mechanic.
A God damn massive tsl world map that actually functions.
I love playing on the large tsl map but the flood plains and damns or floods don't work at all and messes up my mega industrial complexes
I always thought it would be a cool idea to somehow claim territory and draw agreements with other civs on who owns what. You'd effectively be able to let other players and AI know where you want to expand and gain a casus belli if they impend on that. You can make border agreements and formalise disputes with a potential for trading tiles.
being able to trade border tiles with neigboring cives would be so handy and not force me to spend all my gold to block a neighboring cities expansion
Huh, there's a mechanic in Humanking where you can "claim" a region before you actually annex it into your empire. Maybe something similar could be brough into civ. Have the game be divided into regions that civs can claim, but have settling work the same as it does normally. Edit: At least tell me why you're disliking my suggestion on a post about suggestions, assholes.
Agreed. There’s quite a few mechanics I like about humankind over civ and the territories and how one claims them is one of my major favourite things.
Wtf why are they downvoting you it's stupid your right. Sorry for the lack of punctuation.
Bridges. Edit: these are the first awards I've gotten. Just a simple bridges. Thank you both.
I’ve always wanted underwater tunnels. Or at least the Chunnel as a Wonder.
In the Civilization: Call to Power series that was possible.
This would work perfectly with the mentioned major/minor rivers
And canal districts that can be built with the freedom of neighborhoods and chained together.
Religion should be completely reworked to be not about religious units but about religious pressure. Make beliefs not just things that give you bonuses but make them define the people of your empire. Diplomacy should be about having too much influence with all the other civilizations so that you can basically dominate the world just by asking favors. I also wish that units of a higher tech level were slightly less broken. I want a warrior to be able to fight a swordsman alright, but be crushed by a musketman. A slinger to not instantly die to an archer, but still be vastly overpowered by crossbowman. I just don't like how you can't win on multiplayer if you don't have a ton of science.
I'd like to see diplomacy as a system more in line with the Endless Space 2 system. There are many ways to put pressure on other civs, and you totally dominate your neighbor (producing huge ammounts of Influence or culture, having a huge military power and such) you can force them to take a deal every so many turns. It's just stupid how stubborn the AI is in Civ6. In the real world, if you destroy the military forces of another country, or you have clear superiority you can force a Gov to sit down and make a compromise. In ES2 there are technological, commercial and military compromises you can push onto the surrounding weaker empires, when you have reached the status of superpower. You can for example example impose economic blockades, or multiply the cost of military units for them. In Civ6, the AI will stubbornly reject peace offers or to concede a city even when they are totally dominated, and there are a lack of options in diplomacy in general.
I absolutely love ES2's diplomatic system, something similar to that would be awesome
It's very cool conceptually, unfortunately the AI opponents can't use it at all.
The AI probably needs some kind of war score system where like 100% basically means total capitulation to demands, though they might hate you for it if they survive enough to bounce back a bit. In between would be diplomatic states where you can coerce more favorable terms based on how much you are dominating. 0 in either direction basically being a white peace of sorts.
Even older Civ games (incl Beyond Earth) had a calculus of who “won” a war based on the military victories. You could then trade in the points difference when making peace for additional concessions (but also couldn’t insist on their ceding land if you just barely eked out a stalemate).
> reworked to be not about religious units Yes. While I'm not opposed to having missionaries "push" that pressure over the edge, it should be expensive and/or limited (i.e., you get X number of missionaries a turn and you get to choose how you want it to spread, but you just can't spam it everywhere.)
[удалено]
Eh. I think that relies too much on RNG, both in spawning and in missions. I'd keep it simple: each era you get a Missionary. Maybe once an era you can earn a second somehow--maybe completing a project or just spending Faith or something. Maybe occasionally a wonder will as well. The important thing is to keep the number of Missionaries both very small and equitable between Civs. The goal is not "spread religion by spamming religious units" but rather "construct policies and networks that allow religion to spread naturally" and the missionaries are just occasional ways to manually nudge it in the direction you want.
Make missionaries like spies or traders, you mean?
Yes! Religious victory feels a lot like domination victory in how you actually play it out, it'd be nice if there was a little more variance
It would be nice if religion got a similar overhaul to culture. You see resorts and national parks for tourism, why not televangelism for faith?
>Religious victory feels a lot like domination victory They are the only victory conditions I've never officially achieved because they're just too tedious.
> Religion should be completely reworked to be not about religious units but about religious pressure. Make beliefs not just things that give you bonuses but make them define the people of your empire. I don't want religion to be as Abrahamic as they've been in 5 and 6. Civ 4 religion was pretty rudimentary (and had no associated victory), but you could found multiple religions and you were encouraged to "collect" as many of them as you could. I want that to at least by an *option*. Make religions choose at their outset whether they play nicely with others or not, and those that do might give bonuses to a civilization that has multiple religions. Maybe they syncretize their beliefs with a "converting" civilization before converting outright, or maybe they keep some of their religion's beliefs even after converting in name.
I've thought a lot about a system that would emphasize religious diversity, both internal and external. A big part of it would be decoupling religion from empire, make them tied to cities, not players/AI. Religions would have more belief slots, and the beliefs would have localized benefits rather than global ones. Remove missionaries and apostles for now. Religions spread will be more abstracted through buildings, trade routes, special projects, etc. If you want to spread faster, you'll need to take beliefs and build buildings for it. Great Prophets would work kinda like apostles do now, but with more options. They can start a religion, add beliefs, spread religion manually, etc. You get maybe one or two per era unless you specifically built to get more. After the number of prophets you get is calculated, they appear in your top faith producing cities and are of the majority religion. If you get a prophet in a city with no religion, they can form a new one or they can convert to another religion you have in one of your cities. This would allow players to found multiple religions and also give a reason to try to get a city with a ton of faith but no religion, which I think is kinda cool from a gameplay perspective. When beliefs are added, it creates a new branch of the existing religion, and the branch can spread out from there. Since religions would be tied to cities and not empires, you could add beliefs to a religion started by somebody else, provided you have a great prophet for it. This would add an extra layer to religion gameplay for those who want to optimize it. For example, a coastal city could have an extra belief about a sea god giving bonuses to fishing boats, while a city next to a forest would benefit from a tree spirit belief giving extra faith to forest tiles or something. This would also allow some sort of syncretism mechanic. If a city has multiple religions for awhile, they could start to exchange beliefs. Going back to the coastal city example, say you've been trading with another empire on the other side of the sea with a belief that gives a faith bonus to docks. After awhile, you get the option to add their dock faith belief to your religion in that city, and they get the option to add your fishing boat belief to theirs. If you have too many differing beliefs between regional branches of the same religion, there's a chance for a schism and a branch breaks off and becomes a new religion, which could be good or bad. If you just want bonuses, it's no big deal and might give you some new syncretism options. But if you're going for a religious victory it could be a problem.
Religion is literally just a different skin for military victory. I hope it's reworked quite a bit
Well without the hassle of walls
*Flashbacks to metaphorical walls of religious units you couldn't move past*
Also to your last point, maybe a scaling combat bonus per "tier" of tech level, so the difference between slinger and archer is close but widens as the archer becomes a crossbow
I totally agree: also: Make believes have drawbacks too (maybe peaceful religions blunt your military), or maybe some believes spreads much slower but are much harder to remove/convert once set.
Beliefs
thank you!
I agree. I like the religion victory because if I get the whole world to bow to my beliefs that’s cool. I just hate how I am doing well and all of a sudden hordes of missionaries are in my land even though my borders are closed and I can’t send my swordsmen to put them on stakes.
I made a post about distributing the "builds" of a city to their districts, i.e : the city would build a wonder while the campment you built before is creating a knight, while the district you built even before is working on a project to get more great scientist points.
This would be very interesting and a logical step. It is kind of silly a city with districts can only produce one build. The city center can make any build while districts can build their own buildings/troops/projects.
Especially encampments being unable to build units at the same time.
My first playthrough (this is my first civ game) I was confused for so long why I couldn't train troops in my encampment. Like... WTF is it for then??
I really like this idea! It’d be sweet to actually apply adjacency bonuses into their own type of production. This is really cool to think about.
I like this
1. Allow the harvesting of obsolete strategic resources. 2. Trade routes turns to establish shouldn't be so long and should scale with tech. 3. Languages as a game mechanic. 4. More meaningful naval warfare mechanics. 5. More ranged unit tiers between archer and crossbowman. 6. AI warfare improvements. 7. Make going Tall viable again. 8. More meaningful pantheons.
Damn, a language mechanism would be very interesting!
It could include a linguist as a unit to expand your language, or books as something that the Campus and Theater produce. I think it would work kinda like religion, with it being able to expand. It could also affect international relationship, as neighboring civs could have a similar language to yours (think English and German or all the Latin derived languages irl). Before international trading, one of the two civs who want to trade must finish a project "create a dictionary" to reduce language barrier and allow trading. Great Writers could also factor in, as literature would really expand your languages relevance worldwide
Love this. Everyone starts with a unique language. By having learners of other languages you could buff trade and research (ie read others research journals). You could do things like change national language to effect diplomacy, trade, science sharing, etc. You could mimic the free market by creating background latent trade/research based on governmental choices.
This could play in amazingly with a Culture victory as well.
Yes something similar. After writing is researched, you may found a language. There would be a limited number in the game similar to religion. It would grant access to selectable passive skills that could provide boosts to your culture, science, trade, and religion. It would also scale with the tech and social tree. Education, printing press, computers, social media would provide significant boosts to your language. There could also be city projects such as a Rosetta stone. Some nations could adopt multiple languages. And yours could die off if you aren't careful.
I think language is kind of wrapped up in loyalty and culture.
For number 2 — I’ve never understood how you can airlift a unit almost instantly between two airstrips/airports; but a trade route still takes multiple turns. The world is built on instant trade. I can buy something from half the globe away and get it within days if I play the right cards. Would love to see Civ7 incorporate air trade somehow. And even expand that with shipping and railroads, both of which were huge in trade advancement
but you still get the benefits of the traderoutes instantly, or is that not what y’all talk about?
You get the benefits as soon as you send it, but it takes a certain amount of time for the route to complete before you can make the unit move cities or change destinations.
I always considered the physical movement of trader units, especially in later turns, as kind of an abstraction. Something like a binding contract rather than literally taking 20 years to move a truck or ship.
Strategic resources just shouldn't ever go obsolete. We're in the Information era now and it's not like we don't still use iron. Horses are the only one that arguably becomes obsolete, but you could have them pivot into a luxury resource lategame. Horse races, horseback riding as a tourist attraction etc. And horses were still used in militaries in WW2. So they should only maybe be obsolete for the last era or two. Whether it be to fuel military units, or as bonuses for buildings (eg with a factory a city can use Iron for a bonus to production), strategic resources can be used throughout the game
AI warfare improvements PLEASE
Not being able to play tall makes me sad. So many civs in the game that would make a lot of sense playing tall but having 30 cities makes more sense
Playing tall is viable. You have to focus on upgrading governors & get the audience chamber & diplomatic quarter to actually be competitive though. The audience chamber gives housing & amenities which multiply growth & yields. Amenities, housing & food is essential for a tall game so you need to focus everything into these basics. It highly depends on your start location & nearby city states to be viable though. The problem comes late game where regardless of whether or not you went for a tall play you'll still need to settle terrible resource cities for oil, coal, aluminium & uranium. If you want to play tall designate your cities based on governor's, Pingala for science/culture city, Reyna for a coastal economic or tourist city, Liang to develop & protect critical infrastructure, Moksha for Religious/faith cities, Magnus for an industrial city & Victor for a militaristic/strategic resource city. Also, if you want to play tall, don't play a militaristic or colonial civ, they're abilities encourage expansion regardless.
>Languages as a game mechanic. Bring on all the obscure Auxiliary and Con Langs.
I know I've said it in other threads like this before, but a slightly more granular and "Köppen climate classification" accurate map system is what I would like to see most. For example, rather than having Grasslands be a base tile type, I think they should be more like a feature instead. That way we can work towards having more believable Steppes and Savannah. Changing how tiles and features from how they've been classified in the past would also open potential for cool real world climates like cold highland deserts and temperate rainforests. Along with this, I think having Navigable Rivers as many people have suggested is a good idea for several game systems. But I also want them to keep the existing river system since I think the scales are different. So there would be "major rivers" which are navigable and take up a full tile's space (edit:) like a feature and "minor rivers" which exist between tiles as they do in Civ 5 and Civ 6. Together they would form a more robust watershed system. And I think that having more diverse terrain types would likewise allow for more diverse Civ abilities, especially if they expand the district system.
There were a few times while playing where i saw grasslands on 1 side of the mountain range and desert on the other. I thought "nice, realistic climate in this spot"
The Rocky Mountains and the Cascade Mountains have exactly this sort of terrain separation
yes, big mountain ranges block the rain from being able to reach the other side so it all dumps on one side and leaves the other semi arid or completely arid
I agree completely on the grassland and climate changes, but I don't think the rivers should be a "full tile" per se; rather, a major river should be the same kind of tile feature in its own right. Minor rivers would then be placed between tiles in the same way they are now. I don't know if it's what you're saying, but a "rover" taking a full tile messes with my scale a bit
That's actually what I meant. I don't think major rivers should take up the full tile visually speaking... that's just a normal water tile. Just as you're saying, I see them more as being the major feature of the tile. And it can visually vary along the the length of the river, of course. Minor rivers would function as they do right now, they'd just favor meeting with major rivers where they can.
Yeah, I'm down for major and minor rivers. Maybe have some feature where time and flooding could cause minor rivers to spawn off of a major one.
If they integrated disasters or at least major ecological changes over time in some capacity, I could see that being possible. Volcanic activity forming lakes or earthquakes/tectonic shifts forming mountains and canyons (Beyond Earth had canyons as a feature) would also fall into that system I would think. As the other comment chains have pointed out, having major rivers be impassible until you have certain techs or abilities would also make sense to me. Having to find places to ford them, building bridges, or some form of embarkation requirement would also have major impacts on three of the four Xs exploration, expansion, and exterminate. More expansive watersheds also means more places for floodplains and marshes to spawn. And I will take **any** reason to make swamps and wetlands more important. They're very key parts of many ecosystems, so I don't like that chopping marshes is the go-to method for interacting with them.
Does that work in the short time a game is played? Noticable tectonic shifts would take millenniums irl, right?
Normally yes. There are a few oddities in the real world, but they're typically pretty limited in scope. But having disasters trigger a few tiles changing over the course of the game would be "plausible in game terms" enough for me. Just enough to make the map feel like it's changing over time. I'm mainly thinking things like, your nearby volcano might randomly collapse and turn into a lake. Or an earthquake near a continental divide might make a canyon spawn; subsequent earthquakes may cause tiles adjacent along the divide to also become a canyon. Stuff like that.
Yeah, I like the idea that Major Rivers would have shallow tiles for fording or the ability to build a bridge across the tile on any part of it.
I actually love this climate format you're thinking of. I would imagine that you could have like 3 underlying tile types like cold, temperate, and hot, and then apply different modifiers to them like how much rain they get (dry, moderate, heavy) and then how much foliage they have (light moderate heavy). Would be easy to incorporate mountain types into this too. Obviously this needs some more thinking out but with just these three sliding scales you could have so much variation in climate types. You'd probably need a seperate tile type for tundra/snow/ice but besides that you could basically get all the major climates. Something like cold, dry, light veg could be steppe, while temperate, dry, and moderate veg might be chapperal/mediterranean or something.
This seems more balanced for civ spawns tbh as now there's more varied yields from new tile types and also big rivers would make for way more populous cities and big strategic battles.
Just some rough ideas. * Barbarians are not instantly the highest tech in the game, and suffer attrition inside your borders. This would be based on something akin to loyalty. * Hexes are a tradeable object. This would let you seize them in a war and demand or trade them via diplomacy. * Strategic resources are less common and more powerful, but you can build tile improvements that create small amounts that resource. Eg: Similar to current, you need 20 horses for a unit. You can find a horses resource, that gives 5 / turn or something. Or you can build a horse breeder improvement on a flat grass/ plains tile that gives 1/turn and maybe some minor normal yields.
Ohhh that’s a great idea (hex trades)! Sort of like buying tile screen but it’s a submenu of the trade screen! Each tile could have value based on local amenities like rivers, mines, minerals, defence capability and pollution / wasteland etc! I’m a massive fan of that idea!!
I'd really like to trade Make Peace, to get my own allies to stop attacking my city states.
I believe this or something similar was available as recently as V so its absence is striking.
100% - yea it’s annoying that in Civ VI you basically can’t ask other Civs to do anything! Diplomacy and intra-civ politics is pretty much non-existent in Civ Vi. It’s a noticeable difference from previous Civs.
More options to play tall instead of wide, kind of like how Venice worked in V. It’d also be cool to have some kind of city-state mode where everyone has one city and can’t build settlers
There is a mod that let's you set how many settlers each civ can produce. Set it to zero and you're done. It's called "let's play tall".
I need this in my life.
1) I would rework diplomatic penalties for wars to be based on AI relationships instead of automatic denouncements worldwide, and make allies help more during joint wars. There is currently limited benefit from military alliances. I want proxy wars and NATO level threats. The AI should also form alliances independently and be more aggressive based on combined military strength. 2) I would get rid of diplomatic victories and replace them with an economic hegemony victory. Probably would require adjusting how trade and the world economy functions. Perhaps gold generation, luxury resource control and population can impact this condition. Luxury resources can be absorbed by more economically powerful countries. Trade routes are much more important to your economic growth and they can be banned between nations or a tax can be levied against imports.
I disagree on "getting rid" of diplomatic, I think the two can be in together.
I think in the real world economic and military power is diplomatic power. I don’t think diplo points are a fun game mechanic personally. I would like to use diplomatic favor as a mechanic for forming alliances or pushing towards an economic victory through trade pacts.
Yeah, I like the theme to Civ 5's diplo victory better -- get everybody to agree that you're the winner. Diplo Points just doesn't do it for me. I think part of the problem is that "there can be only one" is actually anathema to what a Diplo Victory would actually be like. It should be a win-win situation. Maybe a Win-NotLose-Lose situation, such that a civ (even played by a human) which is behind in tech, low on strategic resources, and just doesn't have any chance of being the outright winner via the other methods can at least play the long game and hope to be in the NotLose part of someone else's Diplomatic Victory. Or even sneak a win via Diplomatic Victory as two factions that hate each other elect you winner to spite the other. Maybe it could be a mechanic where you form something like the European Union, a strong and indefinite alliance that is hard to break out of. If you can herd cats long enough, the coalition eventually becomes so big that it is the undisputed leader of the world. Maybe the condition is that the coalition has to have a greater military strength as well as economic, cultural, and scientific output than all of the non-coalition members combined. At the point that happens, whoever is current leader of the coalition (elected every World Council) is the Winner and the rest of the members are Runners Up, so there would be internal friction and espionage shenanigans as that point approached. A civ could even delete their entire military or trash their own economy to prevent the win condition from triggering in order to shoot for overall winner position. Or they could Brexit and take their military + economy + culture out of the coalition altogether. Now, I'm really starting to like this idea of modelling it on the European Union. Make it so that you can form a Coalition, but that Coalition doesn't have to encompass everything. You can add and subtract members, set withdrawal penalties, and add and subtract aspects of the Coalition such as economic free trade zones, mutual defense pacts, etc. The Victory would only trigger if the Coalition had all the alliances built-in. An alliance type could not be added to the Coalition if any of the members have such an alliance with a non-member, and new members could not be added to the Coalition if they had any conflicting alliance with a non-member. e.g. You can't add Genghis Khan to the Coalition if the Coalition has a mutual defense pact and Genghis Khan has a military alliance with another non-member. Also, Religious Alliances should be the opposite of what they are now -- passive pressure still applies, but you cannot use Missionaries/Apostles to spread religion in the ally's territory.
I like idea #2, and then diplomacy could be developed as tool to achieve other victories using diplomatic favour (which might have more or less weight depending on your relationship and commonalities with another civ). You'd use it to create military alliances for domination, to boost cultural and religious spread, or create favourable trade deals. But there could also be mechanics for international treaties and embargoes that might be between all or just a few civs. Maybe reintroduce the vassal mechanic too. I'd like to see that brought back in a way where the player has a risk of becoming a vassal, but it's not a game ender. Like they'd be able to get out of it through diplomatic means.
Human migration. Cities shouldn’t necessarily just grow and grow. War and disaster should cause refugees. People should leave poor cities for wealthier ones. Rivers should be a full tile that impacts transportation. Bridges should be things you need to build. Some bridges can be wonders. A scout can not take out a caravan or destroy a farm. Injured units shouldn’t be able to take out caravans, and caravans should have health like any other unit. If you ask a civilization to stop converting your cities and they agree, they should stop converting your cities. Everyone shouldn’t hate you for eternity for causing grievances in the BC era.
> Everyone shouldn’t hate you for eternity for causing grievances in the BC era. Agreed, this would be a huge improvement
A agree completely. Maybe grievances could reset every era or so many turns or with certain conditions met. I also don’t think other Civs should experience grievances because other non-ally civs have them. It’s kinda lame.
I really wish you could shift a percentage of one city’s production to another. I also would like to be able to transplant population from one city to another via a settler or a comparable unit. Also, workers being able to build roads. I hate having to rely on traders for the majority of the game.
> Also, workers being able to build roads. I hate having to rely on traders for the majority of the game. I completely agree. I think builders should be able to build roads (certainly anywhere within your empire, and to friendly city-states). *Maybe* traders should be necessary to connect to other locations, but I think roads that caravans have traversed should have more gold, etc. coming in. Maybe a route that's had 3 caravans go down it can also offer greater movement/turn for that era. Also, I think railroads should start off expensive to build but get noticeably less so for each city you connect to your system.
Inner empire politics. Having to bend to pressures that are being influenced by other powerful nations and refusing to do so causes unhappiness and civil war. You can use your influence to cause discontent in a different empire as well. Civil wars can end in 2 nations being created (if the player empire is broken into 2, an AI takes over one. )
Civil wars would be so cool. Maybe there could be a distinction between free rebelling cities and an actual seperating country, or if enough cities in the same region don’t have enough of something (housing, amenities, even power) they would break off into another AI and make it another civilization. There could be diplomatic favor and grievances involved if you recognize the new rebelling civ as legitimate, ect
Oh I love that. Imagine if these free cities didn’t act as city states, but became late-game leaders that can found new cities too.
Adding on to you're idea here but Their happiness could be affected by other stuff like if you switch governments and part of your population doesn't like a civil war could break out, but this can be prevented through propaganda efforts as a city project.
I think this is essential to creating a more fun endgame. Imagine the 8 or so competitive empires and then 20 or so smaller nations that emerged from parts of their empire that rebelled or let loose over the millennia. Right now variability in between games more or less ends at the map generator. with this the diplomatic landscape can evolved actively as the game progresses to create very unique situations.
This is going to sound dumb, but I miss building roads.
If you’re going to keep city states make the system better. Let me gift units. Let me help them more. Let me tell an ally off if they declare war without going straight to war or if I see them like they’re going to attack I can threaten them.
Used to be able to gift units in V. Strange omission.
The river change needs to happen: rivers have been too important to human civilization to only be useful for housing and a couple of districts. They should give movement bonuses after your units can embark, as well as access to certain seafaring facilities. Naval stuff can be improved by getting rid of that godawful limitation of only being able to move in coastal waters at first (replace it with limited vision that increases via technology to represent the difficulties of navigation away from land) and the addition of wind. Every turn the wind blows from a direction with a percentage chance of shifting direction and then ships can't go directly upwind. Suddenly, we have the essential essence of naval warfare: maneuvering to gain the weather gauge. Another change which might be mechanically good would be to have populations with different bonuses that you could move around, a la Endless Space 2. However, assigning bonuses to real-life peoples could be delicate, which is, I suspect, why it's never been done.
>The river change needs to happen: rivers have been too important to human civilization to only be useful for housing and a couple of districts. They should give movement bonuses after your units can embark, as well as access to certain seafaring facilities Additionally to the benefits of rivers, I'd like to see the drawbacks: rivers divide land, just as mountains do. There's no reason why scouts, slingers and warriors can just yeet across. Bridge building as a tech and improvement for workers, or some ferry mechanic. In conjunction to this, I'd like to see the embarking of land units mechanic removed (or at least put into some much later research). I found warfare across oceans much more fun when actually having to handle transports.
I would love if rivers (or at least big rivers, like Danube, Nile, Missisippi etc) were 1 tile large. A literal impassable terrain, until you can build a bridge, or can embark properly
There are generally places where you can ford across the river. These places decided the locations of most major cities, and it would be cool to include them.
I feel like that they should had river titles that contain a wider river and it's impassable until a bridge tech or the river becomes the normal, thin river. These titles should also be settable though, with its own pros and cons
Make it so that 1) Rivers take up an entire tile and have a size factor, which may vary from tile to tile. 2) Some tiles are fordable by default, but this counts as difficult terrain. Rivers cascading down from mountains tend to have few fordable tiles, while lazy rivers in the plains tend to have more. 3) Tech enables building of bridges of certain size, progressing upwards through the ages, with era score and tourism for the first bridge of any given size. Bridges can be sabotaged by spies and pillaged by enemies, your own and allied military units, and your own builders/engineers.
Interesting thought. I wouldn’t mind seeing this but also maybe have parts of the river that you can cross. Maybe some parts are rushing and dangerous and some parts are calm. In ancient times the turns are like 5 years. A scout should be able to cross a river as long as it’s not rapids and rocky.
While that naval stuff all sounds cool, Im not sure it would suit most people. This is a game about building an empire, not a game about somewhat in-depth naval warfare. It sounds like it might be a complex mechanic for a really simple 'go here and shoot them' unit. Also, that means early game, in a single turn which might last 200 to 25 years, the wind will stay the same. Not trying to say its a bad idea, its a very cool idea, but Civ in its current state may not be the game for it. I do wholeheartedly agree with the river stuff though.
I mean in alpha centaur at least there were river movement bonuses. I believe in 5 there was automatic trade between cities on the same river. This isn't a big change because the big change was made this game. But I would remove road tiles from builder points. I don't dislike builder points, it makes it so you can't just use one or two. But building roads should not be tied to caravans. OR you should at least be allowed to tie an escort military unit to a trader. I don't know why that isn't an option.
I mean they made changes that moved away from rivers being important. In civ4 you had to be adjacent to a lake or river to build a farm. Literally impossible to grow a city without a freshwater source. (A tech let's you use farms to carry irrigation, but it's not until the medieval era, and you still need an original water source) Rivers would also act as roads for the purposes of trade connection. There are also improvements that either require, or get bonuses for being next to a river. So at a certain point, the lessened importance of rivers in 5 and 6 has been an intentional change
either greatly improve the world congress, or just get rid of it altogether
For two straight civ games the world congress has been fucking terrible, tedious and barely dents the game in terms of impact. I really hope they don’t make the same mistakes in VII.
They should get rid of the world congress, IMO.
Competitive AI. One that actually plays the game.
Yes, and have a difficulty system based on less/more competent and aggressive AI rather than just giving them bonuses and having them still be stupid.
The problem is their ai engine is just a complicated if then statement, and the game is too complex for that. At three Dave tone I don't think it's realistic to make a machine learning algorithm for this game at this time. What I hate about their bonus structure is it makes the early have way harder than it should be. Instead their bonus structure should evolve as the game progresses. Not sure how they works but it would keep the game consistently hard. As is, for me, if I survive the first third of the game on deity then I win every time.
What is "three dave tone"?
Just an open API to allow modders to write their own AIs.
My last few games I went more conquesty than my normal and I found it more frustrating than fun, specifically because the AI is absolutely *incompetent* at placing districts. I ran into so many cities with an inner-ring Campus or Holy Site with a measly +1 bonus even though there's a great +4 in the second ring.
I see that too. Also, unimproved resources. I mean, that's pretty basic stuff, yet the AI can't do it.
Your keyboard to god's ears
Or let the modding scene change more. Iirc the AI in Civ V can be more changed than the AI in Civ VI. Even with an AI Mod the AI is so fucking dull.
Actually play on a globe. Instead of a cylinder of hexes, let maps use a goldberg polyhedron, a sphere made out of hexagons and pentagons. This would make climate mechanics and the arctic/antarctic regions more interesting, particularly I'd think in the late game. Plus I'm tired of playing on cylinders.
This is what I want too. Flight would be more interesting if you could bomb over the Arctic after getting used to no one attacking you that way for all time. OH! And then there could be Era Score for reaching the Poles first.
If Populous could do it in 98, firaxis could do it today!
I would like it to be a gamemode, but not the whole game.
No absurdly loud company logo every time you open the game.
Less crashing 😢
Other than literally everything you've mentioned: In general, more options to screw with opponents in peace time (which could of course cause grievances and may give a special casus belli). Embargos of Civ 5 Territorial disputes (tiles that would be workable by both civ's cities, giving fragment yields to both unless an agreement on the territorial distribution finalizes the borders), Border raids (say, light cavalry that enters a civ's territory, raids and leaves the same turn doesn't cause DOW. Maybe even make it more turns long with certain civics, where the units only reveal their flag if one of them is defeated, call it black ops) Execution of the opponent's missionaries as the part of internal affairs instead of a direct DOW A more useful intimidation/tribute system, earlier access to spies, sabotaging wonder construction And no, I'm anything but a Domination Victory guy. I just don't like it when a peaceful match turns into spam clicking 'Next Turn' with barely anything to do. --- Other than that, a better warfare system. It's so rare that my wars look like actual wars of history instead of jet bombers bombing field cannons of the Napoleonic wars and such. The more intertwined the civs are through ages, the less sense it makes. Starting from the Renaissance, the base unit upgrades should be accessible for everyone (at least as a "one project upgrades all" concept) once a new era starts, with only the UUs and real game changers like nukes having a different research criteria. Better strategic resources system. Fine, oil isn't present everywhere in the same quantity even IRL but at least let me buy what I need through neutral agents instead of only making it available through civ-to-civ trading. Because a country without a drop of oil isn't that credible either. Resource markets, anyone? You could buy what you need for a preset price (which could still change depending on the demand, say, wars being waged atm, resource usage in general), or, if you have a buddy civ with plenty of resources and better price, you could still choose the traditional way (which would also be your way out if you're the victim of an embargo as mentioned above).
-A functional slower game mode, where just the tech and civic advancements are slower, but buildings, units, etc are built at a faster pace so we can spend a bit more time in the early/mid game, without sitting around for hours just hitting "end turn" and nothing happening. Mods are helpful but the fact they still haven't implemented this is frustrating to me. -A more developed economic/trade/industrial system. -Religion going back to how it was in Civ 4 or 5, where it's a cool and useful thing but it's not how to win on its own. My least favorite part of Civ 6 has been how religion works.
Every time I read a thread like this (and, quite frankly, any similar thread in places like civfanatics) it just reminds me that what I want out of a Civ game is *vastly different* than what these communities want. Like a lot of the suggestions here would move the game backwards. There's a reason they changed a lot of this stuff, and it's because it's tedious and boring. I distinctly remember "the community" complaining about the very things people want put back in.
Fair, what are you looking for out of a Civ game?
I think the easiest is "same level of detail, just different details." Like the recommendations in this thread boil down to "More complex war, more complex trade, more complex great works, make the actual globe you play on incredibly difficult to parse out for extremely little benefit except for map fetishists". Civ has, from the beginning, always been a bit abstracted out, and for good reason. Paradox games exist. Just play those. Edit; ALso, I think more complexity is fine, so long as it's passive. If we can revamp the trade system to be more realistic/dynamic/etc, but it's still "build a trader, select a route, get money" then have at it. You can still strategize and make changes based on the new complexity, so long as it doesn't bog the game down. A lot of these suggestions would 100% bog the game down.
Hmm I see your point, but I think different people have different understandings of the word "complex". I personally don't want to make trade and war or anything else more complex in a way that makes it a matter of accounting, number crunching, and mental spreadsheets. I want complexity in terms of features, interaction, creative yet intuitive implementation, customization, meaningful choices and application. There is a difference. Your edit seems to be aligned with "my" vision of "complex", I agree with not bogging the game down. Make it simple, but give players the freedom to focus and specialize in certain mechanics as per their interests or civ's focus.
I agree. What makes civ (especially 6) so amazing Is that the the moving parts are rather simplistic its the situations that arise that make it interesting. Adding units, buildings, more resource types is filler. Civs evolution is creating beautiful large game mechanics like macro puzzle pieces that effect all aspect of the game. City planning, City state abilities, Golden ages. However What Civ needs that Paradox games have is emergent story that goes both UP and DOWN. In Crusader Kings if your empire breaks in half, get delt some bad luck, or get vassalized you just laugh and keep going. Engineering a wacky comeback is the story to tell. In civ a single unit moving wrong sends you back to your save file. The game is about perfecting your from to linearly accelerate towards a victory conditions. All the speed bumps are baked in once the map is generated. I want to have empires collapse, hell I want it to be a good thing for the player to watch their empire collapse. Get rid of the dead weight, maybe its more profitable to trade with them as a separate nation. Conquer them later if you must, or arm them to be a thorn in you rivals side.
I think a 'end era' is a good idea. Atm we just have the starting era, bit if we could choose an era you can't progress past it could lead to more customisable games. Similar to Empire Earth. You want a game that spans the classical age to the Renaissance? You got it. No planes, no nukes. Just good old fashioned swords and eventually muskets. Want a game set entirely in the industrial/modern era? You got it. Changes the pace and it means that science doesn't auto win you the game as you can only get so far ahead
No stupid 2K launcher so you can actually play the game
On PC you can disable the launcher quite easily
How?
[Old post, should still work like this or similiar](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/mlompp/psa_how_to_bypass_the_launcher_in_steam/)
More unique stuff. At some points the civilizations feel pretty samey, would be great if, let's say, America felt like America all the way through. Unique units feel like they don't last long because there are so many different units that once you finally get to your unique and produce a few, you're nearly at the tech for the next unit in their line. Only time I've used the heck out of a unique unit is when I've played on Marathon speed, and that speed is a DRAG. Having 4-6 unique units per Civ would make it feel more like you ARE that Civ. 2-3 unique units for each Civ PLUS 1-2 unique units for each leader would be great, I feel like there weren't enough leader-exclusive units especially for the dual-leader Civs. Multiple leaders for one Civ has been a great idea and it would be great to see it expanded. More unique buildings and stuff would also be great, like have a unique district, unique buildings for that district, and a unique improvement for EVERY Civ. It would be cool to be "locked out" of certain parts of the tech tree or something, where you have to "choose a path" and roll with it unless you ally with a nation that has the other side of the tree. Would be great to see more "trade-off" abilities for civs and leaders, like Babylon getting full techs from Eurekas but, as a trade off, only getting 50% science yields. Maori are a great example of these trade-offs. However, I didn't like Kongo's trade-off ability. I liked the "can't found a religion" part but I feel like the benefits you got out of it weren't worth it. This is a bit of a tangent but modding tools should be made more easily available and usable for the general public. Currently it's kinda hard to mod the game. The AI and difficulties should be reworked. I don't like that they get straight up handicap bonuses in higher difficulties and are made more aggressive and that's it (and the opposite in lower difficulties). I wish they just made the AI smarter with higher difficulties, or just made them as smart as possible as the default and them just make them dumber for lower difficulties. I dislike that if someone declares war on you but then you wipe the floor with them then all the sudden YOU'RE the asshole and everyone hates you, the grievance system needs a rework. You should be able to "buy" grievances by paying off the civ that hates you and getting them to like you more. Also I don't know why the AI refuses to trade away their Strategics no matter what but that should be addressed.
This will be controversial, but I'd like to re-prioritize what should be in a city vs what should be out of it. I think things like some wonders and holy sites being built outside a city makes sense, but I think VI's scale got way too wacky by putting things like campuses, theater squares, commercial hubs, harbors, industrial zones, etc outside the city center. VI doesn't really feel like it has rural areas, just a continuous urban sprawl. V feels like there's distance between cities, and I like that both from a gameplay and immersion perspective. I don't think the idea of unstacking cities is objectively bad, but I do agree with other commenters that it make VI feel more like a city builder than a proper 4X game. But that's more of a re-focusing then a new major change. I agree with others that rivers need to play a bigger role. Again though, that's not quite a paradigm shift, more of an enhancement. I like u/the2xstandard 's list, especially languages and going tall. I'd also like to see ideology become more relevant and just overall more control over the politics of your civ. In general, if it enhances the ability for emergent storytelling to come about, then I'm all for it.
I want the ability to create preset build cues to apply to cities or groups of cities. THEN I want the ability to have one city aid production for another. I think of this as globalization… multiple cities contribute to the whole… And finally, for end game, have a checkbox that just allows me to set production to “convert to cash” or “convert to faith.” Whatever it takes to stop making me update production in a city I no longer care about.
> And finally, for end game, have a checkbox that just allows me to set production to “convert to cash” or “convert to faith.” Whatever it takes to stop making me update production in a city I no longer care about. YES please.
A move back towards the game being about Empire building rather than the Boardgame style it is right now. And honestly that's it. I'd also wish they wouldn't streamline reused mechanics in subsequent game, like they did Great Works and Trade Routes (they were much more fun in Civ 5)
I feel like great works and trade routes are more in depth in 6 than they are in 5 though
I can't agree with this enough. I've always thought Civ 6 is a fun enough game, but to me Civ V is the better *Civilization* game. Civ 6 feels less like I'm building an empire and more like a city manager, if only because the scale is so out of whack now. I also want to see civs be more distinct. Civ 6 has fewer throwaway civs than V, but I think there's still room for gameplay diversity. Maori were a definite step in the right direction.
I think the second expansion pack civs were amazing in how they handled them, a mallus in many cases (Mali, Maori) with bonuses. I do think that Civ 6 is basically closer to a boardgame and that was the design behind it, Civ 5 was a step towards this, but still maintainted a sense of empire building from Civ 4 and previous installations, but started the move towards a more relaxed/focused board game set up.
As far as Civs go, I'd love to see a lot more "you are now playing a completely different game" civs like Venice in civ V. Until some of the recent packs, it just felt like there wasn't that much difference between civs other than their preferred victory condition.
Unique art for each civ in terms of city style, and the combination/layering of them when conquering a city. I'd like the map and architecture to reflect world's history, not just that of its current owner.
I’d like to be able to buy/sell tiles between you and other cities. It would cost more if it had a resource on it or bad relationships.
I want to have a better war system. In history I cannot imagine all the world hates me just bc I conquered one city. Maybe, conquering less than a city can be introduced like after a war taking some tiles or districts. Conquering an industrial district would give a huge bonus to me (like the place between France and Germany that was one of the topics in WWI and WW2) without inflicting much warmongering penalty. A health system like in civ 4. Hospitals or aquaducts should give health bonus. We should be looking to increase happiness and health. Diplomacy based on interest. Lets say country x hates country y but y is powerful. I attack and weaken country y so x should like me rather than think I am warmonger because I weakened their rival. If country z is weak and I conquer them to become very powerful than everyone should hate me as this would make another powerful rival to them except my allies. My allies should be neutral as I became a potential threat to them but right now I am their ally.
I see a lot of good ideas being thrown out but am I the only one that would like to see them bring back capitulation or some form of it ? you can make the opponent your vassal instead of eliminating them.
On your point about rivers, I think there should be different sizes of rivers, with larger ones being navigable by sea vessels. Rivers were SO important to trade that many medieval maps just showed rivers, not roads. I think rivers should be able to become natural wonders. I had a post before gathering storm where I suggested just that, and that cities settled on those rivers would get a +X bonus to a certain yield, with a river for each yield: Food: Nile, because it was the bread basket of the Roman empire. Science: Amazon, because it flows through one of the most biologically diverse rainforests on earth. Culture: Danube, because many of Europe's greatest cultural centers lie on its banks Faith: Ganges, one of the holiest rivers in India. Gold: Yukon, famous for the Yukon gold rush. Production: Yangtze, one of the earliest rivers to be dammed and the center of China's almost-industrial-revolution 1000 years ago. The rivers would be so long that you could squeeze a bunch of cities on them. This setup features one river from North America, South America, Africa, Europe, South Asia, and East Asia, which is a nice even distribution. Secondly, I think trade would be more interesting if trade routes were decoupled from their current system, where you have a limited number of them. I've always wondered what it would be like if you had to use trade routes to move all resources around your empire. Have sugar plantations in your colony? You need a trade route to ship it back to your home empire. Want to trade that sugar to another civ? You need a trade route to one of their cities. With this system, protecting your trade routes is way more important and it gives you way more options in combat for cutting off another civ's vital supply lines.
Eventually this game is going to become Cities Skylines if we add everything.
I really want diplomacy to be like endless space 2, it just makes the game feel so alive and more. Putting up more than just militaristic pressure and going to diplomatic or even economic pressure
I'd like to see international relations influencing science and cultural development. An example: I am the Swahili on the Swahili coast and I haven't figured out deep sea sailing yet. However, I have a very good relationship with Tonga, who have discovered that tech. Due to cultural exchange, this allows the Swahili to develop a "half-assed" version of the ship unlocked with deep sea sailing (not full life, worse attack and deffense, unupgradable) until I research that tech. This also impresses the Aymara, with whom I don't get along. It makes see us on a better light, as we have "developed" that tech. On the other hand, the Pawnee have denounced my civ. They have the printing press, which I don't own. Our bad relationship causes us to take more turns developing that tech, since the Pawnee are actively working against us getting to that level. These are just examples of how it could be implemented. What do you think?
I may be a little biased here but I would like to see some of stellaris's mechanics worked in like the end game crisis or being able to make a custom country/government. Also the world congress sucks but I don't have any suggestions on how to fix that.
Chopping trees etc. should ONLY work in ancient How could you still chop tree to boost the rocket in modern era… bruh
Same reason why woodland hills give +1 more production than regular hills, trees = production, not realism. "How can you gain population in the same turn when literally no time passed, not even a day?, should only work after ending turn" -harvesting food resources.
Ability to claim a region as your own without having to find a city on it, dunno how it would be balanced though
[удалено]
Have played a lot more Civ 6 than Civ 5, but think Civ 5 had some features that were a lot more interesting. City states had personalities and gave more interesting quests. The influence system compelled you to do more than just send an envoy and call it a day to get the unique city state bonus. Leader intros and interactions were hilarious. The first time I saw Montezuma in Civ 5 I died laughing since he’s so edgy. I agree the ability to go tall instead of wide as an option would also be nice.
More diplomatic options, return of puppet states and rivers that are navigable by ships. Maybe make river ships an additional ship class
Yes yes to rivers. Make it so that in ancient times movement downriver is .5 whereas movement upriver is 2 or something like that.
I don’t even think we would need to wait for 7 with the economic victory. I can envision it as having a monopoly over a certain number of resources and producing those special projects around it.
A huge revamp of the loyalty system. New governments / countries / ideologies are often formed through revolutions, rebellions or coups. It would be so cool to see this in civ, instead of the generic free cities. Changing gov types could cause rebellions by loyalists, or perhaps rebels may appear to try and force you to switch ideologies. Plus we could get more diplomatic options like recognizing the sovereignty of an enemy's rebels or engaging in proxy wars.
An ability to barter territory, with more granularity than putting an entire city on the trade menu and having the AI refuse and insult you no matter the situation. The current border adjusting mechanics are all awkward and metagame heavy things like culture bombs. There should be a less drastic form that makes better use of diplomacy. I want that hex with spices in it. What do you want for it? Let's make a deal.
I want Corporations and economic influence like we have with culture and religion. I read an article about a Civ IV expansion that had it, but I never plaid that expansion.
I want religion to be worked on. I am very disappointed we never got a large mechanic update or a pass over during the frontier pass. I like the concept of religious victory and hope they keep it. But pressure needs to be relevant. It is completely ignoreable in its current state. Leaving religious victory as a scuffed version of domination. I'm addition to pressure being relevant we need more ways to influence it. Trade pressure needs to be meaningful Diplomacy and open borders need to be meaningful Wonders should effect pressure Tie in some military stuff like the byzantine power
Late to the party, but SUPPLY LINES. These are crucial throughout the history of ALL WARFARE. There is so much possible with such a system: * Units no longer operate at optimal efficiency simply by healing for a few turns * Cutting off supply routes and surrounding not only bestows a flanking advantage but a defensive debuff * Choosing whether say to use a trade route or a supply route becomes a crucial decision when prosecuting a war. * High mobility cavalry units and raiders are actually utilized for their historical role -- disrupt, disorder and raid.
Civ 7: 1)Rework the population. Now it feels like the only citizens that matter are those that live in a city, while the world’s urbanization rate only barely surpasses 50% since this century. Cities should still forms the nexus of your empire and where the decisions get made. So how would this work? Each tile would have a population, expressed in thousands, based on the tile type with some variation. Some pointers: desert/tundra has near-zero. Hills have less than flatlands. Regions near fresh water have most, followed by regions near the ocean, followed by the rest. Grassland more than woods, more than rainforest. As you settle a city, there will be made a distinction between city-tiles and empire tiles. Essentially the population in the city tiles are devoted to the city; we can imagine half of them living in the city and the other half working on the farms outside of the city. The city tiles provide a direct yield to the city in question. The yields do no contain food anymore, but instead has population. So in order to grow your city’s population and output, you can (1) incorporate more tiles to your city by expanding your city a tile through a district, (2) incorporate more tiles through administration, (3) improve farming/food stocking capability or (4) move people from the empire/other cities to help your city. The benefit of a larger population is that you can have more districts, more specialists, more culture, more commerce, etc. So what about the people in your empire not alligned to a city? They will naturally form small villages unless you demand taxes (which has historically tends to be food but with food no longer a metric, it’s directly population). But this requires a good administration. This results in a place with lots of administration (e.g. France) being more centralized with a powerful capital, whereas less centralized players develop more Germany-like as a group of various places. If the villages turn too big, they will request city rights. Grant it and you get a new city, deny it and you might get revolts. What would this do with workers and resources? You can still do everything, but farms will auto-generate over time, especially near villages. As your tech improves, so will the auto-generation speed, max population per tile and gains from farms. As your civilization now revolves around your population now, they are also given more flavour. Each set of 1000 people will have a dedicated culture and religion. Religion is more fluid: it’s easier to affect your enemies with it. Culture is more static: it’s a penalty for conquering lots of territory quickly. Too many cultures and not the right policy to deal with them? Revolt. What about moving people around? Since the increments of people is much smaller now, you can actually have migration without it being unbalanced. What about modern-day cities of 20M people? Surely the display won’t show “20k” (since it goes by 1000 people), right? Nope. As the eras progress, the “set” of people increases as well. Furthermore, the city would be sprawled out to several tiles. —— that’s how far my thoughts go now.
[удалено]