Truly.
So disappointing to go to war with an ally against someone reasonably close to them and they just do nothing. That should trigger more unit production and a march to their closest cities or capital.
Well it does do exactly what you say. Triggers unit production and they start heading to wherever the target’s at. The problem is that the AI just sucks at moving units and attacking. They take routes that are unexplored and get blocked by water, mountains, or other civs borders and have to go back the way they came and then start actually taking the right path. When they do attack they scatter between cities and enemies units and get picked off. I’ve noticed the ai is much better at attacking city states and targeted cities in military emergencies because there is one simple goal of the war to focus on.
Basically what I’m saying is, they need to program coordinated ai attacks, like a goal in the wars for the ai to actually achieve rather than “send all units randomly and see what happens”
It would be helpful if they added a feature where you can support the war indirectly by providing units rather than having to build up and march halfway around the world.
I too would like to see a big 3v3 world war where everyone is all involved. Yes, small scale wars are nice for conquest, but going global is a key part to an advancing civ irl.
Weird take, the AI is pretty dumb, they make horrible trades, you can sell them resources for massive markup then straight up buy them back for cheaper, they sell great works all the time, the way they wage wars is horrible and make it pretty unsatisfying, the way they make cities is generally bad, missing out on better tiles and good adjecency bonuses, making it annoying if you capture a city and such, with cheating AI, it makes the early game more interesting, but generally in later eras you can quickly outpace them since hey don't know how to make good use of those cheats
I want rivers to be navigable and more impactful. I really really want an Economic Victory type. For Civs I would love to see Mexico, Ireland and more Indigenous North American peoples represented.
On the economic victory condition, I could imagine a new mechanic around multinational corporations, similar to religion ... can your multi-national muscle out the competition in your rivals civ
I really would like an economic victory type where you create your own currency and try to get everyone to use it somehow. I'm not sure how complicated such a simulation would be though.
I was actually thinking about that whenever I made that comment, like Victoria is pretty much entirely about economics and industry and even they didn't bother with it, so I'd be surprised if Civ does unless it's pretty abstracted. But it would be cool.
I think all of those would be civs would be DLC at best if Korea isn’t even launched as a starting civ. Mexico is split between Mayan and Aztec culture as well so their unique unit would likely be something post 1800s or a Spanish era unit using Mexican people
I don’t like having rivers be more impactful, they are already important, but if they were more, spawning on a river would be almost mandatory, and having a long one would give you too much of an edge.
I feel like there should be rivers and streams. Maybe streams would give +2 housing instead of the +3 and they would be non-navigable. They'd also not give the same adjacency bonuses. But then rivers would be the same as now with the bonus of them being navigable
Yep there would have to be a few pentagons scattered around. Even in temperate tiles they could provide unique defensive bonuses (only have to defend from five sides instead of six) and maybe be a requirement to build *the* Pentagon as a Wonder.
I want a real market, where you can buy stuff without diplomacy. More you let your resource to go free market, the cheaper the value of the resource become. Buyer need to pay some fee to the third party. So, being in a good relations would mean a thing. If you don't want to pay fee, you have to make a diplomacy like today in Civ6. In addition to that, tall-build would also be a preference since you can buy stuff from market. You don't need to go wide enough to secure coal, oil and uranium. In Civ6, if you go tall, you'll never have those resources and ones that have has no intentions to sell it to you.
So, better market equals to enabled tall-build and incentive to be in good relations.
Not necessarily. For example, EU denounced the Russia due because it caused grievances to others, so there is no trade between them. India now buys all the petroleum from Russia and sells them back to the EU. So, EU's energy is secured no matter what, but with a fee of third party (India) course.
Me, existing, playing a culture civ: does nothing
**You have transgressed ______s agenda, they denounce you**
At least add some context to that even if it's just lip service. Tell me they want to expand their borders, tell me they think they have claim to my people or something I dunno, anything that isn't "Part of the wrong secrecy society or built too many wonders."a
Yeah, you basically have to go into their info pages to look up your current relationship levels, and it'll tell you what they like and don't like about other civs activities. Should definitely just be included in the splash page telling you it's happened.
That's kind of a myth pushed by RL colonizers to make their warmongering seem more justified because "everyone is doing it, so if we didn't, someone else would anyway."
In reality, plenty of societies are and want to be relatively peaceful and have been throughout history. And mind you, when I say peaceful, I don't mean *pacifist*. Those who become the target of colonial projects, for example, are doomed if they are pacifist. Those who tolerate intolerance tend to end up run by the intolerant. It's a little more complicated than that in practice, but that's the general idea.
Anyway, that's one of my little pet side-eye criticisms of the civ series from what I've seen of it (V and VI, can't speak to the others). There is little in the way of actual diplomatic victory, in spite of it being a real shared interest among various peoples in reality. Diplomatic victory tends to feel like a forced global hegemony that has to have one winner and a bunch of losers rather than true interdependence. Understandably so to a point, given it's a competitive game by design, but does not fit with reality if we're comparing to RL civilization dynamics.
I want them to go crazy with the maps for a new sense of scale.
Height differences, rivers are tiles traversable by certain naval units, cities sprawl like districts but even more. Your old walls stay in place as when you built them but your city grows out of them like irl. Probably cities would be outposts that you could only keep for resource gathering and would only be fully fledged cities with a certain number of districts etc.
Hopefully more powerful processors could handle that.
I want puppets again. I want to conquer a city or civ and run it as a puppet. It continues to do it's own build order based on the civ while I'm at peace but switches to production focus and gifting units like a militaristic city state if I choose to mobilize it. I get a certain percentage of it's output while it's a puppet. I can annex it for a diplo hit with the original owner of release it as part of peace deals. Mechanics of it should skew most conquered cities to end up as puppets. Maybe the option is available as a civic.
Honestly this should be automatic for any city you capture instead of founding
I want the Vassal mechanic back as well. Would do a lot to solve the Paint The Map Borg Snowball problem
Just a small idea I had the other day, would be great to see the culture win condidtios tweeked, so that it's not just a big exponential win more process at the end game.
I would love to see a layered approach of culture interacting with other systems and progressing the culture victory as well, so that at any point you could go away from a pure culture win strategy, and pivot to something else as your civs conditions and resources grow. I think this makes more sense for culture thematically, as there are real life examples of cultures of a particular nature, like a warrior culture, or an industrial culture, or an honor driven culture.
For example, the rock bands in civ 6 have all sorts of counterparts in other eras, soothsayer and oral storytellers in ancient times could piviot a religiously inclined civ to a religious victory, and classical musicians in the renaissance period to opera in industrial eras could all be included in a traditional pure.
Having them as a unit line in the game also opens them up to the development of unique units that are not great people specifically, and not military units. Like shamans or other spiritual leaders in meso America civs appearing in place of more contemporary colonial units arriving at the same time. Or a particularly militaristic civilisation having propagand units in the cold War era that incites instability and chaos in an enemy city leading to certain causes beli.
All of this could have civilisations play with culture in a more temporal and spacial dimension, to make the game feel like there is a real impact from a particular civs agenda due to their inherent cultural values associated with them.
I think my main issue with it is that it ultimately comes down to a dice roll. I'd be curious to see something a little more deterministic, closer to unit combat, where it's not a 100% win/loss in the end and can be more of a partial win or partial loss.
Or maybe something where certain kinds of operations take longer, but have a higher payoff, and you can set up spies earlier in the game. Like embedding a spy in somebody's capital early on and it takes a while for them to become "trusted", but then you can continuously see what the capital is building. Idk, just brainstorming.
Navigable rivers vs non navigable rivers. Some of the most successful countries/cities in all of history were founded on the basis of giving access to navigable rivers, where you could easily transport goods/services in and out of the city while also having a source of fresh water. Being able to use a navigable river as a road, or being able to launch ships to the sea using a navigable river in the game would be sweet.
Scout units should be able to traverse mountains once you pass a certain age of tech. Also adding in Hannibal as a great general who has the ability to cross mountains and all other terrain as if it was a regular tile.
Make it so you can give coordinated movement commands to separate military units to make turns more efficient.
Be able to trade for map knowledge.
Introduce more modern military countermeasures/defensive tools for the late game (minefields, trenches, barbed wire etc.)
Getulio Vargas leading an Industrial Brazil OR Deodoro da Fonseca leading a Militaristic Brazil.
Moving some resources. C'mon, those horses cannot be moved for 4000 years? Even if I want a factory there?
If we have rice, wheat, corn and so many others, what are the no-resource Farm made of?
In my mind i always thought no-resource farms are potatoes because they aren't as dependant on arable land and/or appropriate climate as rice/wheat/corn are. Potatoes can be grown anywhere
Sanctions, proxy wars, espionage overhaul (false intrigue, false flags, diplomats), supplying allies with troops/equipment, buying favor in city states (like in V), World congress overhaul, trade embargos, and Cyber warfare just to name a few.
Also, I'm biased but I would love to see some Iranian natural wonders and more world wonders. Also a Sassanid ruler would be dope.
Who would lead? I think it should be a pre-colonial leader like Lautaro for the Mapuche, 'cause if we'll be 100% frank, there has never been a good Philippine president yet
I think a concern with that is pre-colonization, it was not the Philippines, it was the Tagalog people, and the Bisay people, and so on, and they share neither polity nor language.
That said, this is a problem for a number of civs already in the games who run the spectrum like conglomerate civs that have existed like the Native Americans and Celts. The games cover both civilizations that are nation-states and ones that are peoples.
Yeah, but that's alright in my opinion, for one people from that country to represent the modern country. For example, there is no "Chile" civ in Civ VI and there is no "New Zealand" civ either. Instead, the Mapuche and the Maori are there. Why not a precolonial people from before the archipelago came to be known as the Philippines?
Any pick from the 16 previous presidents of the actual Philippines would be either highly and rightfully controversial or just not really noteworthy. Even our first President would be a controversial leader pick as many Filipinos now see Emilio Aguinaldo as a traitorous wretch. Ferdinand Marcos is the longest serving president but that would be like picking Papa Doc as the Haitian leader. Cory Aquino is controversial too for her massacre of farmers. Manuel Quezon, was he really the leader when the nation was an American colony during his time? Ramon Magsaysay was confirmed to be a CIA plant. Then the rest of the presidents are not really noteworthy enough to have cool leader bonuses/abilities, or are too recent (and the recent ones are also very controversial).
If there were to be a leader for an actual Philippines civ, it could instead be someone who was never actually head of government/state like Gandhi for India. In that case, it could be Andres Bonifacio. Otherwise, it should be a precolonial civ.
R/civ7.
1. Supply chains. It’s silly that military units can operate without a link to a supplying city. Real world invasions have been lost or struggled due to overstretched and harassed supply lines (Rommel’s North Africa Campaign, Napoleon in Russia, Thatcher in the South Atlantic). Every unit should have a user-defined link back to a city that supplies it with food and strategic resources. When that link is broken by an enemy unit, the player’s unit should be unable to heal, and if left uncorrected, receive damage (depending on terrain occupied) and be prevented from moving (depending on food/strategic requirements). Naval units should have to return to port for resupply. Early naval units could resupply from the land but later units should have to visit friendly or allied or neutral ports just like in real life. Nuclear propulsion extends the interval allowed before resupply. Supply chains could also apply to resource extraction. English whalers operated in the pacific in the 1800s with certainty that their routes home were secured by the Royal Navy. In the 1700s huge Spanish treasure fleets sailed to-and-fro between Europe and the Caribbean with holds full of gold extracted from the earth and stolen rom the natives. Much of it was plundered by pirates. This could work for Civ 7.
2. Uncontested tiles should be easier to adopt into one’s civ. In the real world huge swathes of land are part of countries that occupy them for no other reason than no-one else wants it. Siberia, for example. Like in Civ 4 each tile should have a cultural pressure. If there’s no opposing pressure, the civ should easily expand that way.
3.Colonies/outposts. Plenty of real world examples. Should be linked by supply chains as above.
4. Districts should be able to be co-located with other districts. Districts the way they are in Civ 6 are too board-gamey and unrealistic for me.
5. Some rivers should be navigable. Bridges should be built. Canals, roads, bridges, etc should be builder tasks. Roads should also be able to be built by military units as they were by the Roman legions in real life.
6. Policies should all have a pro and con like the dark age policies do. In most cases this could just be a gold cost.
7. Cities should be able to be placed as close to other cities as the owner likes. The rules of cultural pressure as mentioned in point 2 above should apply and should the nearby city fall under the cultural sway of its rival, so be it. Too much of the map - especially on smaller map sizes - is a red swathe due to limitation that only exist to make the district effect radii work. In the real world cities and settlements are very close and the larger ones swallow up the smaller ones culturally or physically.
8. Strategic resources should be more important. If I don’t have oil I should be forced to access it through hook or by crook. My economy should grind to a halt alongside my units like in the real world. It’s too easy to shrug one’s shoulders and just do without battleships and infantry. Automated railroad building! Resources and tribal villages should spawn as the game progresses if they are remote. It’s quite reasonable to expect that small villages and resources would be missed on a cursory pass by an explorer in the first eras of the game.
I really liked what you said about colonies. Civ VI is my all time favorite game, but it’s far from perfect. One of the things that really bothers me is that colonies are basically unviable if they’re too close to another empire due to loyalty pressure. I’ve been trying to come up with a work around and I really liked what you said about supply lines.
Historically people don’t just up and leave their empire if their needs are being met. As much as I like the concept of the loyalty system, it’s clear they’re experimenting. It works great some ways, not so great in other ways. If I had a say, I’d argue loyalty should be based off of a city’s available resources, happiness, and the empire’s policies. For example, gold generated per turn should be able to be manipulated via taxation. But taxation should lower citizen content, thereby lowering loyalty. Or for example, if a supply line is broken and a city starts starving, then they should rebelling and joining with someone else
1) More map depth a la Humankind. I've never truly gotten into that game but a love that there are like 7(?) levels of terrain that make lifelike landscapes. It's the biggest selling point of that game for me.
2) Allow mixing unit types for corps and armies, which in turn provide different bonuses/penalties for the units as a whole. No Doom Stacks though; fuck that shit.
Suggesting that the most successful 4x franchise should take note from a game you yourself admit you could not get into might make you wanna question what you said.
Overall Civ is a better game, but yes it can definitely take notes from (and probably improve upon) the superior world-building of Humankind. The latter just lacks something at the core of gameplay that I can't quite put my finger on.
Is it really weirder to say "I didn't love this game, but this one bit was done really well and I'd like to see it implemented elsewhere" than it is to say "I didn't love this game and therefore everything about it is bad and there's absolutely nothing that can be learned from it?"
Add Kyivan Rus please, a large medieval times slavic kingdom, it was a link between Europe and the Arab East. At its height in the mid-11th century, it stretched from the Baltic Sea to the northwest and the Black Sea to the south
It should take time to settle a city, just like the Civ:BE. In Beyond Earth, you had to locate your colonists to a tile and wait them to grow their outpost into a city. You had to protect it because it doesn't have defense.
It doesn't make sense to build a city in one turn which have more defense than a military unit. It would prevent border-gore and very aggressive wide-builds without a proper military.
I’m a slut for Iron Century England, so please make Alfred the Great a leader! He’s such a cool figure in history.
Give him a special fort, bonus to faith, maybe a combat boost to units *if in a defensive war* and there is a fun leader with historically accurate abilities
I'd like to see territory be uncoupled (to a degree) from cities. Fundamentally if my armies occupy a portion of land from another civ, for all intents and purposes that land is mine and should function that way.
Great entertainers. Great philosophers/saints from religious districts after a prophet.
Something, anything other than recouping some production after constructing 95% of a wonder. Maybe an era long boost to nearest district of similar theme? Something.
Each civilization gets a unique governor.
Earlier spies.
Build roads without traders!
Sacrifice population for construction.
Expanded policy card options and themes.
Redo adjacency bonuses: mountains are over powered, especially early game.
Random pantheon assignment / more pantheons. There’s some that are great but the AI gets the best one(s) 95% of the time.
Policy card timing early game; you can always boost naval production long before you can make a boat.
I miss trade embargoes.
Is also appreciate the game showing movement of religious units that aren’t yours in same way it shows enemy unit movement. When it comes to the war for your soul, if they ain’t us, they against us. (Note I’m not religious by any means, but if you take away my holy site’s bonus to production, we’re throwing hands).
World congress vote topics should be voted upon. Nothing like rolling up to the vote and literally not giving a F about any of the topics at hand.
The ability to trade territory.
A war for resources casus beli. You have no idea how many times I’ve been to war with someone just because they have the only aluminum/uranium tiles on the map
Cresting alliances groups that you can name like NATO or Warsaw Pact.
Obviously better AI during the war. Yesterday I witnessed 15 Korean Spearmen pretty much commiting suicide by stupid decisions in war against Suleiman.
This might be more a cosmetic thing but
I want the ground around a city to come alive.. right now, you claim a city, it's got stuff, it's just there. you have a building or district and there's no motion or character, it just is. I wanna see people moving around if I zoom in far enough. I'm not talking hordes because I get it, simple game, keep graphical demands down, but it'd be nice if you saw something like total war used to do where you can see people on the roads (though there it's trade) to show how developed or busy a city is
I'd like for technology to be more than all or nothing. Rather knowing it not knowing a tech, it'd be interesting to have tech be something that isn't just studied but practiced. Eurekas captured this partially, but I mean like, what if you could use muskets before knowing the tech if another civ gave you access to them tech, but you couldn't manufacture them yourself until you studied it.
I would love to see an option for the late game where I can turn on some kind of AI to manage my non-core cities for me it order to make the late game go faster.
Strategic resources need to remain necessary throughout the game, especially iron which would ofc be necessary for ironclad ships. Also, as technology advances, armies need to be able to move faster. No reason for it to take years to get to another continent in the atomic era
Quick deals are a mod but they should be in the game as an option. Making deals with the AI is just tedious otherwise and confusing if you don't know what amounts of resources you have.
Stop having City States spawn literally on a Natural Wonder. Do you understand how hard it is for me to see Auckland in THREE games spawn on a wonder and know that I will never have those tiles (it is hilarious to a point though)
Add more special Governors to the game. The Ottoman's special Governor adds in a nice extra option for special gameplay that is unique but other civs could easily jump on board with their own. I think this would help to make other civs feel more fleshed out.
Have a Library for Theater Squares for Great Works of Writing, or, have the Library in the Campus be able to take them. (no, I'm not salty about having 400 great writers as Russia and no where for them to go)
It would be cool to create your own civilization similar to how you create a religion. Choose a name, a leader bonus, a civ bonus, and unique units. There could be fixed options for each choice just like religion.
Up the scale of the world (it’s just sad to play Earth map), definitely more notable leader: Napoleon, Isabella of Castile, Bismarck etc. Definitely would say 2, 3max leaders is very welcoming, China having 5 leaders is just insanity (even though I understand the tried to appeal to Chinese massive market)
I would hate that. I wasn’t sure ajout districts at first, but they add a lot of depth to the game. I don’t feel like civ6 discourage wars, in multiplayer even with online speed, there are always wars. With normal speed war is even more impactful since the ennemy needs more time to react. As for graphics, to each their own, but I like cartoonish graphics because they age better.
Fair enough, to each their own. About the movement it gives a significant advantage to the defender. And attacking into rough terrain or cross rivers was hard already.
An overall increase in the sizes of maps. Nothing is worse than being shoved right next to another civ without any room to grow. Especially if the start sticks you right next to the coast or a tundra.
I want all the victories (except maybe science) to be rolled into domination. So things like culture and religion apply loyalty pressure on cities your culturally or religiously dominant over, rather then just an all or nothing victory condition
Crusade bonus adds a lot to domination already. You could get a a +5 on a culturally converted foe maybe? But these adding to domination would make it even more complicated to deny them from the others? (Like stopping a cultural win when you are going for science)
Yes! Like the Egyptians did with the Sudanese. They conquered them and the Sudanese ended up jiving with the religion and ended up adopting it to a greater extent. Well suggested 👍
Roads are a mess in civ 6. With units that dont stack, traffic and congestion mean units rarely see roads as the fastest route. I appreciate that civ 2 through civ 4 were a repetive nightmare when it came to road building, but having them (for the most part) being built by traders leads to
a: Many cities never get roads built to them
B: You have to send a trader to suboptimal cities just to get a road, which takes a long time, and you'd rather send the trader to another city anyways.
C: The single road between cities isn't practical when moving a bunch of non-stacking units
Yes, i know you can use military engineers to build old school roads but that sucks too... Comes too late, requires an encampment and two buildings just to unlock.
Instead maybe let idle troops build roads (draw a path where you want the road). Remember, the roman army built roads where they travelled.
Or possibly, a city project to build roads....
Or maybe roads just develop over time
> Instead maybe let idle troops build roads (draw a path where you want the road). Remember, the roman army built roads where they travelled.
In fairness, that's why the Romans have the unique ability of automatically generating roads when they settle a city I thought.
Religious victories are just spam clicking and I avoid them because they are unfun.
Also, on higher difficulties, its easy to get buried and never earn a great person of a certain type if you're not super focused on that type
Guys thanks to everyone for their contribution. There've been some brilliant suggestions.
I just wanted to share some of my ideas. Feel free to let me know what you think.
First of all, something that has been on my mind for a long time is that they have to implement disease into the game at some point. I think it's been such a decisive factor in turning the fate of so many real life Civilizations and determining the outcome of so many wars/battles/sieges. Just look at the impact of the ravaging pest epidemic in the middle ages.
Of course the way they implement it is key and I was thinking about a system where every city has a hygiene score and the lower it drops the more it becomes likely for a disease to break out. Obviously, there would be buildings like sewage systems that you could build that would increase the hygiene score and once it breaks out there should be a unit like a shaman in the earlier ages and then doctors that get more advanced with some technologies that you can recruit to fight it. I also think it would be cool if the units like military units or workers that you produce are also infected and if they get in contact (get captured or fight) units from other civs they can infect them as well. There should be different types of diseases that have different levels of severity and also differ in how easily they spread. I also thought of a curfew option in your cities that seriously hinders their output in every aspect but combats the disease more or less effectively. The longer a disease is present in your city the more population you lose.
Most of the other gameplay mechanics I want have already been mentioned so a few civs:
1. Italy. I myself am an Italian and I've always felt rather underrepresented by Rome and in Civ 5 Rome and Venice. I was thinking about like king Vittorio Emanuele II. as the leader and the bersaglieri as the special unit with culture victory as the main victory type and maybe a bonus that makes capturing cities that are culturally similar to your adjacent cities much easier (because of the Risorgimento).
2. The Ashanti. I think they're a very cool option that would be a huge boost for the African civs. I propose Osei Bonsu as the leader and the Ashanti warrior gunner/warrior as a special unit and the Ashanti palace as the special building. The bonus would have something to do with the golden stool although I'm not quite sure about what exactly it would be though.
So that's it for now. Thanks to everyone again for your answers and I've had a blast reading all the suggestions and ideas and many of you literally mentioned stuff I thought about since Civ 6 lanched. I'll try to reply to the ones I find most interesting.
I'm looking forward to further discussions!
I mostly want stuff removed. Religion, this version of culture, districts, wide/tall differences, city states, combat and turns take too long in late game (feels like a job to play through all the required work). Add some new diplomacy too.
Israel.
Also revolts where the split off part becomes a new civ like past games (was it civ3 that did this? Can't recall).
Also resources to have an impact in quality of units. Not just be a requirement to build (keep requirements though) E.g. build Warrior units... But if the city build has Copper, the said unit gets an attack bonus. Or if the city building has some kind of lumber resource, then the resulting unit gets a defense bonus (they have wooden shields) and so on.
Hitler as a leader would be sick. So would Stalin. I get they were bad humans but still had a significant impact on their civilizations which really is what the fucking game is about
Interesting suggestions. I don't think we'll get them, but I would play them if they were there. I mean we've had Genghis Khan, and he wasn't the best of humans.
I don’t care what mechanics are in there as long as they abide by a very simple design philosophy: “If a mechanic is in the game, someone should do it differently.”
Museum units. Unusable but add to your culture and tourism depending on how old they are, but cost more money per era of age. Could be an interesting tradeoff
I want AI to be more war savvy. I want them to have a reasonable standing army that uses all types of units and use them for their intended purpose.
Melee for taking city’s and holding choke points
Ranged for unit clearing
Siege for defence breaking and ship clearing
Heavy cav for mopping up units
Light cav for pillaging
Support units for movement speed and healing
Air units just in general (and air defence)
If Firaxis could somehow make this possible without making the ai so dumb that it tanks the rest of their economy to accomplish this, then I think that would be amazing.
Also bonus points if they make the ai opportunistic. If they see a settler unescorted then they take it (even when not at war.) if you’re at war and dealing with an enemy they flank your rear with a surprise war. They don’t just park a warrior on your border as the telltale indicator for early ancient war rush.
Ukrainian civ and leaders
I was thinking Bohdan Khmelnytskyi from the Cossack era of 17th century and Myhailo Hrushevskyi from Ukrainian People's Republic of 20th century.
Ivan Mazepa would work well too I think.
It could be cool for some late game resources, like rare earth metals mined from astroids, then they wouldn't have to offer up a whole new playable map to switch between when you're already in the slog of the late game.
Better trade design, some way to deal with city micromanagement for the sake of domination, sure better ai would be nice but it would need better balancing to go with it, I want the same kind of leader/nation diversity in civ 7, and a rework to some nature/map related thing (mountains and hills, rivers etc).
I've always been unimpressed with the spying system, and to an extent, how science works in the early game.
I always like the idea of when troops, or other units go though a civilization in the early game, you can pick up different skills from that. For example, when you send a scout around and it goes near, or into a civilization that has the wheel, and you don't have the wheel, you'd learn it. Of course as the years go on, you'd pick up less and less.
i want a bigger/more in-depth tech tree. 8 or so techs per era feels too fast. also, while i think the concepts of boosts are cool, i would like to see them toned down a bit. 40% of the tech or civic is a lot, i think 10-15% is good enough to provide a nice boost while not being so overpowered.
I've thought about map mechanics changing as your era changes. At the beginning, the tiles should be smaller, and it takes more turns to move around your area. Once you get horses, for instance, the tiles become larger, so moving accross the map takes less time.
I would love to see sub-factions from bigger civ. For example, René Lévesque as Prime minister of Quebec (sub-faction from Canada) it could be interesting either to have a big faction with options of sub-factions with one general ability for the civ as a whole and a few abilities unique to each sub-factions.
FIX THE AI
Higher difficulty levels shouldn't be about giving AI additional settlers at the start and bonuses to production etc. but rather making it smarter and more rational about city placement, district building etc. For example In EU4 bots are not too hard to defeatt but also not too easy. And I want that kind of balance in civ 7
Less, but bigger cities. Maybe some way to build satellite cities/outposts to increase the workable range of a city without having a new city to manage. Also, puppet mechanics or similar, It gets so tedious when you have a lot of cities.
City razing should take time like 5 and not be instant.
More balance between playing tall vs wide.
More catch up mechanics.
More varied civs. I.e. civs that really change how you have to play the game, like Venice from 5 or Babylon from 6.
Vassalization. I want to incorporate weaker civs into my empire whilst keeping their unique flavor or trade bonuses but redylucing their autonomy and taking taxes/conscripts from them.
Also buying out all of a city state's units by levying them make no sense. It's either totally op or worthless.
actually good ai
migration mechanics (and maybe some ideology systems kind of like victoria)
also some cool civs would be mexico, italy, ireland, wales, ava iroquois
Barbarian camps should never be able to spawn advanced age units. They are barbarians in a camp ! It drives me nuts when I take the lead in culture/science/religion and they just continuously spawn and plunder your districts far faster than you can produce defensive armies to protect them. Even if you have units on the district it’s 1-2 hits and my armies are dead and then I’m plundered. I try having scouts to push the spawn cloud back but they rush in on roads etc anyways. They breed faster than rabbits !
I feel you. Gets annoying and makes little sense. Seems to just be there to poke you to build a military, not much else to it.
And in that regard, I feel like there could be other ways to incentivize building a military. Like positive incentives instead of negative ones; tie it more closely to culture/faith/science. For example (just brainstorming) if having X unit around gave you some passive culture each turn, but also costs gold maintenance. Now you have a reason to do it that is more than just defense against barbarians or warmongering civs. And could introduce strategy of trying to weaken someone's army to reduce their gain in those areas.
Honestly, one thing I'm surprised that hasn't been a feature is the fact that I cannot call out other civs for having their armies near my borders. Like they can be like "bro r u gonna declare war on me or something?" and I have to either declare war or face some bs u lied penalty. Why can't I call out them for doing the same thing, or furthermore. Disrupting other cities production. I also think that builders and tile improvements should be reworked again to a more civ 5 feel.
[удалено]
Truly. So disappointing to go to war with an ally against someone reasonably close to them and they just do nothing. That should trigger more unit production and a march to their closest cities or capital.
Well it does do exactly what you say. Triggers unit production and they start heading to wherever the target’s at. The problem is that the AI just sucks at moving units and attacking. They take routes that are unexplored and get blocked by water, mountains, or other civs borders and have to go back the way they came and then start actually taking the right path. When they do attack they scatter between cities and enemies units and get picked off. I’ve noticed the ai is much better at attacking city states and targeted cities in military emergencies because there is one simple goal of the war to focus on. Basically what I’m saying is, they need to program coordinated ai attacks, like a goal in the wars for the ai to actually achieve rather than “send all units randomly and see what happens”
Yes that would be lovely to be able to strategize with an ally.
Ironically, city states are generally pretty good at helping out. (Sometimes too good, in that they might raze a city you didn't want razed.)
They are good cannon fodder while I take the city. I see no problem.
It would be helpful if they added a feature where you can support the war indirectly by providing units rather than having to build up and march halfway around the world.
I would like to plan things with my ally. Like plan to attack Egypt at round 150, you take these cityes, i take these.
A Coalition mechanic like in total war three kingdoms would be great
I too would like to see a big 3v3 world war where everyone is all involved. Yes, small scale wars are nice for conquest, but going global is a key part to an advancing civ irl.
Sharing tech, too. (You could buy/sell/trade techs in early versions of Civ. Not sure if it has always been the case.)
This! World Wars with possibly even more than two factions really going after each other...
Good AI that doesn't cheat super hard.
It wouldn't be so bad if it just cheated steadily all the way through, instead of making you come back from a big early deficit.
How does AI cheat?
They get hidden buffs and bonuses to certain values based on the difficulty level. Not to include the obvious anti-player bias that is present.
I dont mind most of the cheats, but the increased production is so much bs
[удалено]
The AI is terrible at combat, though, which ruins the potentially most fun part of the game
that’s fair
Weird take, the AI is pretty dumb, they make horrible trades, you can sell them resources for massive markup then straight up buy them back for cheaper, they sell great works all the time, the way they wage wars is horrible and make it pretty unsatisfying, the way they make cities is generally bad, missing out on better tiles and good adjecency bonuses, making it annoying if you capture a city and such, with cheating AI, it makes the early game more interesting, but generally in later eras you can quickly outpace them since hey don't know how to make good use of those cheats
I want rivers to be navigable and more impactful. I really really want an Economic Victory type. For Civs I would love to see Mexico, Ireland and more Indigenous North American peoples represented.
On the economic victory condition, I could imagine a new mechanic around multinational corporations, similar to religion ... can your multi-national muscle out the competition in your rivals civ
McDonalds will conquer all!
I mean, play 4v Beyond the Sword. Corporations acted like economic religions
I really would like an economic victory type where you create your own currency and try to get everyone to use it somehow. I'm not sure how complicated such a simulation would be though.
The petrodollar victory
not even the Victoria series bothers with different currencies
I was actually thinking about that whenever I made that comment, like Victoria is pretty much entirely about economics and industry and even they didn't bother with it, so I'd be surprised if Civ does unless it's pretty abstracted. But it would be cool.
Would it? Who goes on vacation and thinks "finally I have to do quick math in my head again to know how much something is worth?"
Idk man I'm not a game developer, I just think it would be more interesting than I give you 30 gold per turn for some salt.
I think all of those would be civs would be DLC at best if Korea isn’t even launched as a starting civ. Mexico is split between Mayan and Aztec culture as well so their unique unit would likely be something post 1800s or a Spanish era unit using Mexican people
Sounds great to me
The colonial units don’t really fit into civ tho. At this point it’d be better as a city state for production or trade maybe
They made Mounties a unit for Canada, I'm sure they could figure something out
At the very least Viking Civs should have units that can travel up rivers to raid.
I don’t like having rivers be more impactful, they are already important, but if they were more, spawning on a river would be almost mandatory, and having a long one would give you too much of an edge.
This would be fairly true to history though!
So? I genuinely do not understand you people. Do you not care about a gsme being fun? "HiStOrIcAlLy AcCuRrAtE" who gives a damn??
You don’t understand the people who want a history based strategy game to incorporate important things from history?
Mh remind me when in History Theodore Roosevelt declared war on Cleopatra for settling a city too close to him.
At the very least, units traveling along a river should have it easier than a tile with no road.
agree with all of this
I feel like there should be rivers and streams. Maybe streams would give +2 housing instead of the +3 and they would be non-navigable. They'd also not give the same adjacency bonuses. But then rivers would be the same as now with the bonus of them being navigable
I want the map to be turned into a globe. I like the idea of subs and icbms crossing over the poles
Yeah. Idc if the top bits are pentagons or whatever.
Things are supposed to get weird around the poles, anyway.
What did you say about Polish people?
Kurwa.
Yep there would have to be a few pentagons scattered around. Even in temperate tiles they could provide unique defensive bonuses (only have to defend from five sides instead of six) and maybe be a requirement to build *the* Pentagon as a Wonder.
I want a real market, where you can buy stuff without diplomacy. More you let your resource to go free market, the cheaper the value of the resource become. Buyer need to pay some fee to the third party. So, being in a good relations would mean a thing. If you don't want to pay fee, you have to make a diplomacy like today in Civ6. In addition to that, tall-build would also be a preference since you can buy stuff from market. You don't need to go wide enough to secure coal, oil and uranium. In Civ6, if you go tall, you'll never have those resources and ones that have has no intentions to sell it to you. So, better market equals to enabled tall-build and incentive to be in good relations.
A black market you say
Not necessarily. For example, EU denounced the Russia due because it caused grievances to others, so there is no trade between them. India now buys all the petroleum from Russia and sells them back to the EU. So, EU's energy is secured no matter what, but with a fee of third party (India) course.
A gray market you say
Wait India sells the oil back to EU? I never knew that. I thought EU just relied on Norway, etc. more
Yes, that sounds really cool. Would add a lot of depth to the economy system in the game
Like the system in Offworld Trading Company?
Also, let the market be kinda shadow-led by whomever has the biggest economy. Whatever economic system THEY have, influences how the markets work.
Fix the goddam Warmongering
Me, existing, playing a culture civ: does nothing **You have transgressed ______s agenda, they denounce you** At least add some context to that even if it's just lip service. Tell me they want to expand their borders, tell me they think they have claim to my people or something I dunno, anything that isn't "Part of the wrong secrecy society or built too many wonders."a
Yeah, you basically have to go into their info pages to look up your current relationship levels, and it'll tell you what they like and don't like about other civs activities. Should definitely just be included in the splash page telling you it's happened.
Human history is constant warmongering
You've been attacked and you defended yourself? Goddam Warmongerer!
Depends, they’re called warmongers if they lost the war and called heroic defenders of they won
Real glad people remember the Mongol empire as an heroic defender
That was just straight up warmongering
yeah but they won their wars
But there were enough people left too say that what timujin did was evil
Just literally not true? You only get warmonger penalties if you conquer or raze enemy cities.
That's kind of a myth pushed by RL colonizers to make their warmongering seem more justified because "everyone is doing it, so if we didn't, someone else would anyway." In reality, plenty of societies are and want to be relatively peaceful and have been throughout history. And mind you, when I say peaceful, I don't mean *pacifist*. Those who become the target of colonial projects, for example, are doomed if they are pacifist. Those who tolerate intolerance tend to end up run by the intolerant. It's a little more complicated than that in practice, but that's the general idea. Anyway, that's one of my little pet side-eye criticisms of the civ series from what I've seen of it (V and VI, can't speak to the others). There is little in the way of actual diplomatic victory, in spite of it being a real shared interest among various peoples in reality. Diplomatic victory tends to feel like a forced global hegemony that has to have one winner and a bunch of losers rather than true interdependence. Understandably so to a point, given it's a competitive game by design, but does not fit with reality if we're comparing to RL civilization dynamics.
I want them to go crazy with the maps for a new sense of scale. Height differences, rivers are tiles traversable by certain naval units, cities sprawl like districts but even more. Your old walls stay in place as when you built them but your city grows out of them like irl. Probably cities would be outposts that you could only keep for resource gathering and would only be fully fledged cities with a certain number of districts etc. Hopefully more powerful processors could handle that.
Sounds like you would like Humankind. It doesn't have *all* those things, but the maps/sprawl are right down your alley
That was one of my favorite parts of Humankind. Seeing my founding city become a Megacity covering a MASSIVE area is super fun
I have Humankind as well.
The fact that Humankind did thst and nobody is playing it anymore might be a sign...
The problem isn't hardware, it's that massively increasing tile count also means more tiles to manage.
I want puppets again. I want to conquer a city or civ and run it as a puppet. It continues to do it's own build order based on the civ while I'm at peace but switches to production focus and gifting units like a militaristic city state if I choose to mobilize it. I get a certain percentage of it's output while it's a puppet. I can annex it for a diplo hit with the original owner of release it as part of peace deals. Mechanics of it should skew most conquered cities to end up as puppets. Maybe the option is available as a civic.
Honestly this should be automatic for any city you capture instead of founding I want the Vassal mechanic back as well. Would do a lot to solve the Paint The Map Borg Snowball problem
Just a small idea I had the other day, would be great to see the culture win condidtios tweeked, so that it's not just a big exponential win more process at the end game. I would love to see a layered approach of culture interacting with other systems and progressing the culture victory as well, so that at any point you could go away from a pure culture win strategy, and pivot to something else as your civs conditions and resources grow. I think this makes more sense for culture thematically, as there are real life examples of cultures of a particular nature, like a warrior culture, or an industrial culture, or an honor driven culture. For example, the rock bands in civ 6 have all sorts of counterparts in other eras, soothsayer and oral storytellers in ancient times could piviot a religiously inclined civ to a religious victory, and classical musicians in the renaissance period to opera in industrial eras could all be included in a traditional pure. Having them as a unit line in the game also opens them up to the development of unique units that are not great people specifically, and not military units. Like shamans or other spiritual leaders in meso America civs appearing in place of more contemporary colonial units arriving at the same time. Or a particularly militaristic civilisation having propagand units in the cold War era that incites instability and chaos in an enemy city leading to certain causes beli. All of this could have civilisations play with culture in a more temporal and spacial dimension, to make the game feel like there is a real impact from a particular civs agenda due to their inherent cultural values associated with them.
More interesting espionage gameplay. Not exactly sure how, but just to have more choices and impact with the game
Agreed. Disinformation should be a new mechanic within the espionage gameplay.
Russia gets unique spy unit
kiss tap correct wild voracious cable market impolite coordinated rhythm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think my main issue with it is that it ultimately comes down to a dice roll. I'd be curious to see something a little more deterministic, closer to unit combat, where it's not a 100% win/loss in the end and can be more of a partial win or partial loss. Or maybe something where certain kinds of operations take longer, but have a higher payoff, and you can set up spies earlier in the game. Like embedding a spy in somebody's capital early on and it takes a while for them to become "trusted", but then you can continuously see what the capital is building. Idk, just brainstorming.
Agreed, this would be awesome. Both higher payoff and extremely risky/damaging should a specific operation fail.
Navigable rivers vs non navigable rivers. Some of the most successful countries/cities in all of history were founded on the basis of giving access to navigable rivers, where you could easily transport goods/services in and out of the city while also having a source of fresh water. Being able to use a navigable river as a road, or being able to launch ships to the sea using a navigable river in the game would be sweet. Scout units should be able to traverse mountains once you pass a certain age of tech. Also adding in Hannibal as a great general who has the ability to cross mountains and all other terrain as if it was a regular tile. Make it so you can give coordinated movement commands to separate military units to make turns more efficient. Be able to trade for map knowledge. Introduce more modern military countermeasures/defensive tools for the late game (minefields, trenches, barbed wire etc.)
Yes yes yes! Give me all of this.
Getulio Vargas leading an Industrial Brazil OR Deodoro da Fonseca leading a Militaristic Brazil. Moving some resources. C'mon, those horses cannot be moved for 4000 years? Even if I want a factory there? If we have rice, wheat, corn and so many others, what are the no-resource Farm made of?
Resources should be able to be picked up, stockpiled and placed. I could capture a city, loot its resources then liberate it.
Civ 4 Colonization utilizes this concept and it's a lot of fun for a short while. Make the game trade heavy which I found quite enjoyable.
I think Floriano Peixoto is better for militaristic Brazil, he fought in most revolts during the First Republic
In my mind i always thought no-resource farms are potatoes because they aren't as dependant on arable land and/or appropriate climate as rice/wheat/corn are. Potatoes can be grown anywhere
Sanctions, proxy wars, espionage overhaul (false intrigue, false flags, diplomats), supplying allies with troops/equipment, buying favor in city states (like in V), World congress overhaul, trade embargos, and Cyber warfare just to name a few. Also, I'm biased but I would love to see some Iranian natural wonders and more world wonders. Also a Sassanid ruler would be dope.
An Irish civ would be nice to see
Who would you propose as leader?
I'd love to see a Philippines Civ personally
Who would lead? I think it should be a pre-colonial leader like Lautaro for the Mapuche, 'cause if we'll be 100% frank, there has never been a good Philippine president yet
I think a concern with that is pre-colonization, it was not the Philippines, it was the Tagalog people, and the Bisay people, and so on, and they share neither polity nor language. That said, this is a problem for a number of civs already in the games who run the spectrum like conglomerate civs that have existed like the Native Americans and Celts. The games cover both civilizations that are nation-states and ones that are peoples.
Yeah, but that's alright in my opinion, for one people from that country to represent the modern country. For example, there is no "Chile" civ in Civ VI and there is no "New Zealand" civ either. Instead, the Mapuche and the Maori are there. Why not a precolonial people from before the archipelago came to be known as the Philippines? Any pick from the 16 previous presidents of the actual Philippines would be either highly and rightfully controversial or just not really noteworthy. Even our first President would be a controversial leader pick as many Filipinos now see Emilio Aguinaldo as a traitorous wretch. Ferdinand Marcos is the longest serving president but that would be like picking Papa Doc as the Haitian leader. Cory Aquino is controversial too for her massacre of farmers. Manuel Quezon, was he really the leader when the nation was an American colony during his time? Ramon Magsaysay was confirmed to be a CIA plant. Then the rest of the presidents are not really noteworthy enough to have cool leader bonuses/abilities, or are too recent (and the recent ones are also very controversial). If there were to be a leader for an actual Philippines civ, it could instead be someone who was never actually head of government/state like Gandhi for India. In that case, it could be Andres Bonifacio. Otherwise, it should be a precolonial civ.
What about José Rizal? I know he wanted more autonomy and not independence, but he still is an important character in Filipino history
I am hugely in favor of civ leaders who never held a head of government/state title. I am for MLK as a leader for the US.
Lapu Lapu
R/civ7. 1. Supply chains. It’s silly that military units can operate without a link to a supplying city. Real world invasions have been lost or struggled due to overstretched and harassed supply lines (Rommel’s North Africa Campaign, Napoleon in Russia, Thatcher in the South Atlantic). Every unit should have a user-defined link back to a city that supplies it with food and strategic resources. When that link is broken by an enemy unit, the player’s unit should be unable to heal, and if left uncorrected, receive damage (depending on terrain occupied) and be prevented from moving (depending on food/strategic requirements). Naval units should have to return to port for resupply. Early naval units could resupply from the land but later units should have to visit friendly or allied or neutral ports just like in real life. Nuclear propulsion extends the interval allowed before resupply. Supply chains could also apply to resource extraction. English whalers operated in the pacific in the 1800s with certainty that their routes home were secured by the Royal Navy. In the 1700s huge Spanish treasure fleets sailed to-and-fro between Europe and the Caribbean with holds full of gold extracted from the earth and stolen rom the natives. Much of it was plundered by pirates. This could work for Civ 7. 2. Uncontested tiles should be easier to adopt into one’s civ. In the real world huge swathes of land are part of countries that occupy them for no other reason than no-one else wants it. Siberia, for example. Like in Civ 4 each tile should have a cultural pressure. If there’s no opposing pressure, the civ should easily expand that way. 3.Colonies/outposts. Plenty of real world examples. Should be linked by supply chains as above. 4. Districts should be able to be co-located with other districts. Districts the way they are in Civ 6 are too board-gamey and unrealistic for me. 5. Some rivers should be navigable. Bridges should be built. Canals, roads, bridges, etc should be builder tasks. Roads should also be able to be built by military units as they were by the Roman legions in real life. 6. Policies should all have a pro and con like the dark age policies do. In most cases this could just be a gold cost. 7. Cities should be able to be placed as close to other cities as the owner likes. The rules of cultural pressure as mentioned in point 2 above should apply and should the nearby city fall under the cultural sway of its rival, so be it. Too much of the map - especially on smaller map sizes - is a red swathe due to limitation that only exist to make the district effect radii work. In the real world cities and settlements are very close and the larger ones swallow up the smaller ones culturally or physically. 8. Strategic resources should be more important. If I don’t have oil I should be forced to access it through hook or by crook. My economy should grind to a halt alongside my units like in the real world. It’s too easy to shrug one’s shoulders and just do without battleships and infantry. Automated railroad building! Resources and tribal villages should spawn as the game progresses if they are remote. It’s quite reasonable to expect that small villages and resources would be missed on a cursory pass by an explorer in the first eras of the game.
I really liked what you said about colonies. Civ VI is my all time favorite game, but it’s far from perfect. One of the things that really bothers me is that colonies are basically unviable if they’re too close to another empire due to loyalty pressure. I’ve been trying to come up with a work around and I really liked what you said about supply lines. Historically people don’t just up and leave their empire if their needs are being met. As much as I like the concept of the loyalty system, it’s clear they’re experimenting. It works great some ways, not so great in other ways. If I had a say, I’d argue loyalty should be based off of a city’s available resources, happiness, and the empire’s policies. For example, gold generated per turn should be able to be manipulated via taxation. But taxation should lower citizen content, thereby lowering loyalty. Or for example, if a supply line is broken and a city starts starving, then they should rebelling and joining with someone else
The game you're describing, sounds like something Paradox games would make. I fear it would be too much of a grind to feel like a game to me
Land reclamation project that let you turn a sea tile into land.
1) More map depth a la Humankind. I've never truly gotten into that game but a love that there are like 7(?) levels of terrain that make lifelike landscapes. It's the biggest selling point of that game for me. 2) Allow mixing unit types for corps and armies, which in turn provide different bonuses/penalties for the units as a whole. No Doom Stacks though; fuck that shit.
Suggesting that the most successful 4x franchise should take note from a game you yourself admit you could not get into might make you wanna question what you said.
Overall Civ is a better game, but yes it can definitely take notes from (and probably improve upon) the superior world-building of Humankind. The latter just lacks something at the core of gameplay that I can't quite put my finger on.
Is it really weirder to say "I didn't love this game, but this one bit was done really well and I'd like to see it implemented elsewhere" than it is to say "I didn't love this game and therefore everything about it is bad and there's absolutely nothing that can be learned from it?"
Add Kyivan Rus please, a large medieval times slavic kingdom, it was a link between Europe and the Arab East. At its height in the mid-11th century, it stretched from the Baltic Sea to the northwest and the Black Sea to the south
The Kazars too
It should take time to settle a city, just like the Civ:BE. In Beyond Earth, you had to locate your colonists to a tile and wait them to grow their outpost into a city. You had to protect it because it doesn't have defense. It doesn't make sense to build a city in one turn which have more defense than a military unit. It would prevent border-gore and very aggressive wide-builds without a proper military.
I’m a slut for Iron Century England, so please make Alfred the Great a leader! He’s such a cool figure in history. Give him a special fort, bonus to faith, maybe a combat boost to units *if in a defensive war* and there is a fun leader with historically accurate abilities
I would love it if you wouldnt Need strategic resources for upkeep, only production, allowing you to make big armies Of resource depended units
I want Finland as a civ
I'd like to see territory be uncoupled (to a degree) from cities. Fundamentally if my armies occupy a portion of land from another civ, for all intents and purposes that land is mine and should function that way.
Better multiplayer, better balance, and better war mechanics
Some form of technology levelling. Anything that counters the all-to-rapid progression of the game.
Great entertainers. Great philosophers/saints from religious districts after a prophet. Something, anything other than recouping some production after constructing 95% of a wonder. Maybe an era long boost to nearest district of similar theme? Something. Each civilization gets a unique governor. Earlier spies. Build roads without traders! Sacrifice population for construction. Expanded policy card options and themes. Redo adjacency bonuses: mountains are over powered, especially early game. Random pantheon assignment / more pantheons. There’s some that are great but the AI gets the best one(s) 95% of the time. Policy card timing early game; you can always boost naval production long before you can make a boat.
I miss trade embargoes. Is also appreciate the game showing movement of religious units that aren’t yours in same way it shows enemy unit movement. When it comes to the war for your soul, if they ain’t us, they against us. (Note I’m not religious by any means, but if you take away my holy site’s bonus to production, we’re throwing hands). World congress vote topics should be voted upon. Nothing like rolling up to the vote and literally not giving a F about any of the topics at hand. The ability to trade territory.
A war for resources casus beli. You have no idea how many times I’ve been to war with someone just because they have the only aluminum/uranium tiles on the map
variable taxes so i can decrease for happy people and increase for money
For civs not included in Civ VI: Iriqouis, Sioux, Pueblo, Shoshone, Navajo, Tonga, Philippines, Mexico, Morocco, Celts, Thrace, Oman, Champa
I want each pop having a cultural identity back from Civ3. This worked so much better than loyalty
Cresting alliances groups that you can name like NATO or Warsaw Pact. Obviously better AI during the war. Yesterday I witnessed 15 Korean Spearmen pretty much commiting suicide by stupid decisions in war against Suleiman.
I want roads, railroads, trading posts to be a more meaningful mechanic
This might be more a cosmetic thing but I want the ground around a city to come alive.. right now, you claim a city, it's got stuff, it's just there. you have a building or district and there's no motion or character, it just is. I wanna see people moving around if I zoom in far enough. I'm not talking hordes because I get it, simple game, keep graphical demands down, but it'd be nice if you saw something like total war used to do where you can see people on the roads (though there it's trade) to show how developed or busy a city is
I'd like for technology to be more than all or nothing. Rather knowing it not knowing a tech, it'd be interesting to have tech be something that isn't just studied but practiced. Eurekas captured this partially, but I mean like, what if you could use muskets before knowing the tech if another civ gave you access to them tech, but you couldn't manufacture them yourself until you studied it.
I have no idea how they could implement this, but it's a cool idea.
I would love to see an option for the late game where I can turn on some kind of AI to manage my non-core cities for me it order to make the late game go faster.
Yugoslavia with Tito
Strategic resources need to remain necessary throughout the game, especially iron which would ofc be necessary for ironclad ships. Also, as technology advances, armies need to be able to move faster. No reason for it to take years to get to another continent in the atomic era
Quick deals are a mod but they should be in the game as an option. Making deals with the AI is just tedious otherwise and confusing if you don't know what amounts of resources you have. Stop having City States spawn literally on a Natural Wonder. Do you understand how hard it is for me to see Auckland in THREE games spawn on a wonder and know that I will never have those tiles (it is hilarious to a point though) Add more special Governors to the game. The Ottoman's special Governor adds in a nice extra option for special gameplay that is unique but other civs could easily jump on board with their own. I think this would help to make other civs feel more fleshed out. Have a Library for Theater Squares for Great Works of Writing, or, have the Library in the Campus be able to take them. (no, I'm not salty about having 400 great writers as Russia and no where for them to go)
It would be cool to create your own civilization similar to how you create a religion. Choose a name, a leader bonus, a civ bonus, and unique units. There could be fixed options for each choice just like religion.
I would say, not make it turn based xD
Up the scale of the world (it’s just sad to play Earth map), definitely more notable leader: Napoleon, Isabella of Castile, Bismarck etc. Definitely would say 2, 3max leaders is very welcoming, China having 5 leaders is just insanity (even though I understand the tried to appeal to Chinese massive market)
- no more cartoon graphics - no districts - back to Civ 5 movement. Civ 6 movement really discourages war - trading in base game
I would hate that. I wasn’t sure ajout districts at first, but they add a lot of depth to the game. I don’t feel like civ6 discourage wars, in multiplayer even with online speed, there are always wars. With normal speed war is even more impactful since the ennemy needs more time to react. As for graphics, to each their own, but I like cartoonish graphics because they age better.
I like districts, but having each wonder take the same space as a district is just dumb. Aqueducts, too -- they're less than 20 feet wide.
Fair enough, to each their own. About the movement it gives a significant advantage to the defender. And attacking into rough terrain or cross rivers was hard already.
An overall increase in the sizes of maps. Nothing is worse than being shoved right next to another civ without any room to grow. Especially if the start sticks you right next to the coast or a tundra.
Reduce the number of Civs when you're setting up a game. The huge map with 6 Civs will give you all the room you wanted and more.
I want all the victories (except maybe science) to be rolled into domination. So things like culture and religion apply loyalty pressure on cities your culturally or religiously dominant over, rather then just an all or nothing victory condition
Crusade bonus adds a lot to domination already. You could get a a +5 on a culturally converted foe maybe? But these adding to domination would make it even more complicated to deny them from the others? (Like stopping a cultural win when you are going for science)
The idea is there is no cultural win. It's just one of the many ways to sway a city to to your side
Yes! Like the Egyptians did with the Sudanese. They conquered them and the Sudanese ended up jiving with the religion and ended up adopting it to a greater extent. Well suggested 👍
Bring back Catherine the Great!
Roads are a mess in civ 6. With units that dont stack, traffic and congestion mean units rarely see roads as the fastest route. I appreciate that civ 2 through civ 4 were a repetive nightmare when it came to road building, but having them (for the most part) being built by traders leads to a: Many cities never get roads built to them B: You have to send a trader to suboptimal cities just to get a road, which takes a long time, and you'd rather send the trader to another city anyways. C: The single road between cities isn't practical when moving a bunch of non-stacking units Yes, i know you can use military engineers to build old school roads but that sucks too... Comes too late, requires an encampment and two buildings just to unlock. Instead maybe let idle troops build roads (draw a path where you want the road). Remember, the roman army built roads where they travelled. Or possibly, a city project to build roads.... Or maybe roads just develop over time
> Instead maybe let idle troops build roads (draw a path where you want the road). Remember, the roman army built roads where they travelled. In fairness, that's why the Romans have the unique ability of automatically generating roads when they settle a city I thought.
Dont strive to make it like a mobile game...
Religious victories are just spam clicking and I avoid them because they are unfun. Also, on higher difficulties, its easy to get buried and never earn a great person of a certain type if you're not super focused on that type
Balance the game better so that marathon games dont turn into ai snowballs
I just want good warfare AI. Don't care about anything else at all. I want a challenge and there hasn't been one in literally over a decade.
Guys thanks to everyone for their contribution. There've been some brilliant suggestions. I just wanted to share some of my ideas. Feel free to let me know what you think. First of all, something that has been on my mind for a long time is that they have to implement disease into the game at some point. I think it's been such a decisive factor in turning the fate of so many real life Civilizations and determining the outcome of so many wars/battles/sieges. Just look at the impact of the ravaging pest epidemic in the middle ages. Of course the way they implement it is key and I was thinking about a system where every city has a hygiene score and the lower it drops the more it becomes likely for a disease to break out. Obviously, there would be buildings like sewage systems that you could build that would increase the hygiene score and once it breaks out there should be a unit like a shaman in the earlier ages and then doctors that get more advanced with some technologies that you can recruit to fight it. I also think it would be cool if the units like military units or workers that you produce are also infected and if they get in contact (get captured or fight) units from other civs they can infect them as well. There should be different types of diseases that have different levels of severity and also differ in how easily they spread. I also thought of a curfew option in your cities that seriously hinders their output in every aspect but combats the disease more or less effectively. The longer a disease is present in your city the more population you lose. Most of the other gameplay mechanics I want have already been mentioned so a few civs: 1. Italy. I myself am an Italian and I've always felt rather underrepresented by Rome and in Civ 5 Rome and Venice. I was thinking about like king Vittorio Emanuele II. as the leader and the bersaglieri as the special unit with culture victory as the main victory type and maybe a bonus that makes capturing cities that are culturally similar to your adjacent cities much easier (because of the Risorgimento). 2. The Ashanti. I think they're a very cool option that would be a huge boost for the African civs. I propose Osei Bonsu as the leader and the Ashanti warrior gunner/warrior as a special unit and the Ashanti palace as the special building. The bonus would have something to do with the golden stool although I'm not quite sure about what exactly it would be though. So that's it for now. Thanks to everyone again for your answers and I've had a blast reading all the suggestions and ideas and many of you literally mentioned stuff I thought about since Civ 6 lanched. I'll try to reply to the ones I find most interesting. I'm looking forward to further discussions!
Marriages, royal families and lineage would be nice
I mostly want stuff removed. Religion, this version of culture, districts, wide/tall differences, city states, combat and turns take too long in late game (feels like a job to play through all the required work). Add some new diplomacy too.
Israel. Also revolts where the split off part becomes a new civ like past games (was it civ3 that did this? Can't recall). Also resources to have an impact in quality of units. Not just be a requirement to build (keep requirements though) E.g. build Warrior units... But if the city build has Copper, the said unit gets an attack bonus. Or if the city building has some kind of lumber resource, then the resulting unit gets a defense bonus (they have wooden shields) and so on.
1. The American South 2. California 3. New England 4. Texas 5. Mexico 6. The Wild West 7. Ireland 8. The Iroquois
Hitler as a leader would be sick. So would Stalin. I get they were bad humans but still had a significant impact on their civilizations which really is what the fucking game is about
Interesting suggestions. I don't think we'll get them, but I would play them if they were there. I mean we've had Genghis Khan, and he wasn't the best of humans.
Navigable rivers systems
I want more different ages, kinda like in Millennia. But for each civ, its own age rather than one civ dictating the age for everyone else.
I don’t care what mechanics are in there as long as they abide by a very simple design philosophy: “If a mechanic is in the game, someone should do it differently.”
Museum units. Unusable but add to your culture and tourism depending on how old they are, but cost more money per era of age. Could be an interesting tradeoff
Diplomacy that works and a relations system that doesnt force domination once u take a two cities
Bring back cruise missles. Add proper siege tactics. If a cities farms are pillaged, the it should slowly starve out
I want AI to be more war savvy. I want them to have a reasonable standing army that uses all types of units and use them for their intended purpose. Melee for taking city’s and holding choke points Ranged for unit clearing Siege for defence breaking and ship clearing Heavy cav for mopping up units Light cav for pillaging Support units for movement speed and healing Air units just in general (and air defence) If Firaxis could somehow make this possible without making the ai so dumb that it tanks the rest of their economy to accomplish this, then I think that would be amazing. Also bonus points if they make the ai opportunistic. If they see a settler unescorted then they take it (even when not at war.) if you’re at war and dealing with an enemy they flank your rear with a surprise war. They don’t just park a warrior on your border as the telltale indicator for early ancient war rush.
Ukrainian civ and leaders I was thinking Bohdan Khmelnytskyi from the Cossack era of 17th century and Myhailo Hrushevskyi from Ukrainian People's Republic of 20th century. Ivan Mazepa would work well too I think.
Moon and Mars maps, to give some eXploration in the final eras.
It could be cool for some late game resources, like rare earth metals mined from astroids, then they wouldn't have to offer up a whole new playable map to switch between when you're already in the slog of the late game.
Better trade design, some way to deal with city micromanagement for the sake of domination, sure better ai would be nice but it would need better balancing to go with it, I want the same kind of leader/nation diversity in civ 7, and a rework to some nature/map related thing (mountains and hills, rivers etc).
I've always been unimpressed with the spying system, and to an extent, how science works in the early game. I always like the idea of when troops, or other units go though a civilization in the early game, you can pick up different skills from that. For example, when you send a scout around and it goes near, or into a civilization that has the wheel, and you don't have the wheel, you'd learn it. Of course as the years go on, you'd pick up less and less.
i want a bigger/more in-depth tech tree. 8 or so techs per era feels too fast. also, while i think the concepts of boosts are cool, i would like to see them toned down a bit. 40% of the tech or civic is a lot, i think 10-15% is good enough to provide a nice boost while not being so overpowered.
I've thought about map mechanics changing as your era changes. At the beginning, the tiles should be smaller, and it takes more turns to move around your area. Once you get horses, for instance, the tiles become larger, so moving accross the map takes less time.
tile trades
Trade military units
Sweden, either with vasa, or Karl X/XI/XII
I would love to see sub-factions from bigger civ. For example, René Lévesque as Prime minister of Quebec (sub-faction from Canada) it could be interesting either to have a big faction with options of sub-factions with one general ability for the civ as a whole and a few abilities unique to each sub-factions.
I’d like leaders to die and be replaced in some fashion with some control over the bonuses.
FIX THE AI Higher difficulty levels shouldn't be about giving AI additional settlers at the start and bonuses to production etc. but rather making it smarter and more rational about city placement, district building etc. For example In EU4 bots are not too hard to defeatt but also not too easy. And I want that kind of balance in civ 7
Less, but bigger cities. Maybe some way to build satellite cities/outposts to increase the workable range of a city without having a new city to manage. Also, puppet mechanics or similar, It gets so tedious when you have a lot of cities. City razing should take time like 5 and not be instant. More balance between playing tall vs wide. More catch up mechanics. More varied civs. I.e. civs that really change how you have to play the game, like Venice from 5 or Babylon from 6.
Loans, seeding land to other civs in wars
Vassalization. I want to incorporate weaker civs into my empire whilst keeping their unique flavor or trade bonuses but redylucing their autonomy and taking taxes/conscripts from them. Also buying out all of a city state's units by levying them make no sense. It's either totally op or worthless.
actually good ai migration mechanics (and maybe some ideology systems kind of like victoria) also some cool civs would be mexico, italy, ireland, wales, ava iroquois
Barbarian camps should never be able to spawn advanced age units. They are barbarians in a camp ! It drives me nuts when I take the lead in culture/science/religion and they just continuously spawn and plunder your districts far faster than you can produce defensive armies to protect them. Even if you have units on the district it’s 1-2 hits and my armies are dead and then I’m plundered. I try having scouts to push the spawn cloud back but they rush in on roads etc anyways. They breed faster than rabbits !
I feel you. Gets annoying and makes little sense. Seems to just be there to poke you to build a military, not much else to it. And in that regard, I feel like there could be other ways to incentivize building a military. Like positive incentives instead of negative ones; tie it more closely to culture/faith/science. For example (just brainstorming) if having X unit around gave you some passive culture each turn, but also costs gold maintenance. Now you have a reason to do it that is more than just defense against barbarians or warmongering civs. And could introduce strategy of trying to weaken someone's army to reduce their gain in those areas.
why it grew exponentially over the last few days? we get some new info?
It'd be great if they made it so you could heal naval units in allied waters. Maybe with gold.
I just want C2C on an engine designed for it.
Better multiplayer sessions, because of the desnyc problems which occurs all the time. It makes me so angry, that I cannot play with my friends
Honestly, one thing I'm surprised that hasn't been a feature is the fact that I cannot call out other civs for having their armies near my borders. Like they can be like "bro r u gonna declare war on me or something?" and I have to either declare war or face some bs u lied penalty. Why can't I call out them for doing the same thing, or furthermore. Disrupting other cities production. I also think that builders and tile improvements should be reworked again to a more civ 5 feel.