What I'd Like to See in Civilization VII | MMORPG.com

System

What I'd Like to See in Civilization VII | MMORPG.com

While the video and thread didn't outright state that this was the end of development for Civilization VI, the tone of it all suggested a sense of finality. Whether that ends up being true or not, these are some of the things I'd like to see in the next installment of the long running 4X series.

Read the full story here

Alverant

I'd rather play CivV than CivVI because of those districts. I hated them. They took so much time and effort, it felt impossible to build up a great city in a reasonable length of time. So with CivVII I hope they get rid of them or I'm not buying it.

MikeB

Alverant said:

I'd rather play CivV than CivVI because of those districts. I hated them. They took so much time and effort, it felt impossible to build up a great city in a reasonable length of time. So with CivVII I hope they get rid of them or I'm not buying it.

There's no way they're going back to that. Districts have been incredibly popular and represent a clear progression for the series. If anything, I would expect to see more for districts in VII. One of the most popular mods right now is a mod called City Lights, which expands on city planning even further. Another, by modder JNR, expands all of the existing districts with even more to do.

City Lights: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2190389813
District Expansions: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2401367999

I tend to play really long games and have no issues consistently building up my city throughout the ages. It's actually fun looking forward to all the different things that come online and how they change the way I think about how I want to build my cities. Having everything just live in the city center is boring by comparison. I suggest giving it another shot! But hey, if it's not for you, it's not for you.

Scorchien

Bored to tears since Civ 4 ............. so nothing

Scot

MikeB said:

Alverant said:

I'd rather play CivV than CivVI because of those districts. I hated them. They took so much time and effort, it felt impossible to build up a great city in a reasonable length of time. So with CivVII I hope they get rid of them or I'm not buying it.

There's no way they're going back to that. Districts have been incredibly popular and represent a clear progression for the series. If anything, I would expect to see more for districts in VII. One of the most popular mods right now is a mod called City Lights, which expands on city planning even further. Another, by modder JNR, expands all of the existing districts with even more to do.



City Lights: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2190389813

District Expansions: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2401367999




I tend to play really long games and have no issues consistently building up my city throughout the ages. It's actually fun looking forward to all the different things that come online and how they change the way I think about how I want to build my cities. Having everything just live in the city center is boring by comparison. I suggest giving it another shot! But hey, if it's not for you, it's not for you.

Districts are a pointless nuisance that just disguised the dumbing down in rules that occurred from V to VI. The idea that they are popular, well show me the poll of fans that proves that, or it isn't true.

I would not even recommend a CiV fan buys VI, apart from (as always) better graphics (yawn) what is there to recommend it? Perhaps the ridiculous cartoon leaders and pastel colours which seem to be a a change designed to make Civ appeal to children and fit in with it becoming a mobile game. Civ IV is still the best in my eyes though only somewhat better than Civ V which is still definetly worth buying.

So guess what, I want them to return the game to one for adults who have an attention span beyond that expected of a casual mobile player. Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

Apart from that I agree with all of Mike's points, they would all make for a better game.

alkarionlog

well in general civ 6 is a worse game then civ 5, though div 6 make some things a little easier, and let you distribute wonders on your citties then just put it in only 2 for production and troops production, districtis it was a ambivalence thing if you ask me, its interesting thing but if think about it civ 5 also had then only it was not a over world interference.

deniter

I've played every Civ games since 1991 on almost weekly basis and VI is the first one i had to skip. So there's nothing i want them to take to the next version, nothing. Just go back to Civ 5 and continue developing what has worked in the past.

On more specific level i wish they would get rid of this 1UPT (one unit per tile) policy. This was not part of the original game and it doesn't give any value to the new ones either.

xpsync

I don't know how to explain what Civ means to me as it was one of the first games i ever played, more than anying only tinkred with them until 3 came out and played it a lot, tinkered with 4, and hammered 5 so hard with friends, and 6 was back to tinkering.

Its lots of nastalgia packed in that series i guess, lots of great memories and glad it didn't die out.

Mendel

For me, the absolute best thing that Civ VII could possibly do is to rid themselves of the catroonish profiles.  Didn't need caricatures of leaders in Civ I-V, why they added them in Civ VI is beyond me.  I play Civ V almost every day.

Other ideas, some made by other posters above, that I would like to see:

• Drop the 1 unit per hex limit.  If you have to have stacking limits, make them dependent on a nearby leader's abilities.
• More military leaders.  1 per continent (+) just isn't enough.  Armies don't fight by themselves.
• Remove the ranged attacks.  It tries to mix tactical and strategic functions into a single map and just doesn't feel right.  Never has.
• More consistent time.  The 1 turn = 25 years in the early game that progresses into 1 turn = 1 year in the later game tends to de-emphasize the ancient part of the game.  Yes, it would make games potentially much longer, but that can present a more realistic picture (simulation) of the ancient era.
• More randomization in the tech tree and more cultural 'specialization', not just 1 tech and 1 unit per civilization.  Ability to 'learn' foreign techs.
• Remove the hexs in place of territory maps.  Resources and other 'map features' or improvements should be in territories,  Again, this points to trying to mix tactical and strategic functions onto a single map.
  

There's a distinct probability that I won't be purchasing Civ VII simply due to financial considerations, but especially if is simply more of the same that Civ VI delivered.  They need to resurrect some of the old game mechanics, particularly the 'castle' achievement from Civ I-III.

Wizardry

Micro managing itemization without ANY politics.
What i DON'T want is to control large blocks of soldiers,i want MICRO managing.

alkarionlog

Mendel said:

For me, the absolute best thing that Civ VII could possibly do is to rid themselves of the catroonish profiles.  Didn't need caricatures of leaders in Civ I-V, why they added them in Civ VI is beyond me.  I play Civ V almost every day.

Other ideas, some made by other posters above, that I would like to see:

• Drop the 1 unit per hex limit.  If you have to have stacking limits, make them dependent on a nearby leader's abilities.
• More military leaders.  1 per continent (+) just isn't enough.  Armies don't fight by themselves.
• Remove the ranged attacks.  It tries to mix tactical and strategic functions into a single map and just doesn't feel right.  Never has.
• More consistent time.  The 1 turn = 25 years in the early game that progresses into 1 turn = 1 year in the later game tends to de-emphasize the ancient part of the game.  Yes, it would make games potentially much longer, but that can present a more realistic picture (simulation) of the ancient era.
• More randomization in the tech tree and more cultural 'specialization', not just 1 tech and 1 unit per civilization.  Ability to 'learn' foreign techs.
• Remove the hexs in place of territory maps.  Resources and other 'map features' or improvements should be in territories,  Again, this points to trying to mix tactical and strategic functions onto a single map.
  

There's a distinct probability that I won't be purchasing Civ VII simply due to financial considerations, but especially if is simply more of the same that Civ VI delivered.  They need to resurrect some of the old game mechanics, particularly the 'castle' achievement from Civ I-III.

cant agree with the stacking units and no ranged, the limits and ranged make it more strategic, leaving stacking up just make it be a production vs production power, removing hexes also not a good thing, it would make it smaller in scale and again limit strategic combat,

the year per turn is more like how the pace was in older time to today, today we have a lot of information going, things who happen today in any place in the world we can know in the hour, with was diferent in older times, it would take months or weeks IF at all, so this diference kinda fits

deniter

alkarionlog said:

Mendel said:

For me, the absolute best thing that Civ VII could possibly do is to rid themselves of the catroonish profiles.  Didn't need caricatures of leaders in Civ I-V, why they added them in Civ VI is beyond me.  I play Civ V almost every day.

Other ideas, some made by other posters above, that I would like to see:

• Drop the 1 unit per hex limit.  If you have to have stacking limits, make them dependent on a nearby leader's abilities.
• More military leaders.  1 per continent (+) just isn't enough.  Armies don't fight by themselves.
• Remove the ranged attacks.  It tries to mix tactical and strategic functions into a single map and just doesn't feel right.  Never has.
• More consistent time.  The 1 turn = 25 years in the early game that progresses into 1 turn = 1 year in the later game tends to de-emphasize the ancient part of the game.  Yes, it would make games potentially much longer, but that can present a more realistic picture (simulation) of the ancient era.
• More randomization in the tech tree and more cultural 'specialization', not just 1 tech and 1 unit per civilization.  Ability to 'learn' foreign techs.
• Remove the hexs in place of territory maps.  Resources and other 'map features' or improvements should be in territories,  Again, this points to trying to mix tactical and strategic functions onto a single map.
  

There's a distinct probability that I won't be purchasing Civ VII simply due to financial considerations, but especially if is simply more of the same that Civ VI delivered.  They need to resurrect some of the old game mechanics, particularly the 'castle' achievement from Civ I-III.

cant agree with the stacking units and no ranged, the limits and ranged make it more strategic, leaving stacking up just make it be a production vs production power, removing hexes also not a good thing, it would make it smaller in scale and again limit strategic combat,



the year per turn is more like how the pace was in older time to today, today we have a lot of information going, things who happen today in any place in the world we can know in the hour, with was diferent in older times, it would take months or weeks IF at all, so this diference kinda fits

You know, stacking units was never a problem in the first Civ games. Your best unit in the stack fought the battle and if it lost your entire stack was destroyed. You soon learned not to stack your units unless you knew they'll be safe.

The lack of ranged units sure made the early games less strategic, but even that can be done better. In an older game Civilization: Call to Power combats were resolved in a Battle View window. Your "stack" vs. your enemy's "stack". In the combat window all units were in four rows: melee units in the front, ranged units behind them, siege weapons and artillery in the third row, and finally non-combat units in the fourth row. Combat was then resolved according to the specific rules, which i can't unfortunately remember anymore.

I'm not saying that is the only way to resolve combat but i'd be happy to see something like that in more refined state. Civ 5 and 6 combat takes place in a strategic map and feels silly. Your archers have range of 100km ffs.

MikeB

deniter said:

I've played every Civ games since 1991 on almost weekly basis and VI is the first one i had to skip. So there's nothing i want them to take to the next version, nothing. Just go back to Civ 5 and continue developing what has worked in the past.



On more specific level i wish they would get rid of this 1UPT (one unit per tile) policy. This was not part of the original game and it doesn't give any value to the new ones either.

Doomstacks are terrible. I'm SO glad for 1UPT! Lot of weird takes in this thread.

Mendel

alkarionlog said:

Mendel said:

For me, the absolute best thing that Civ VII could possibly do is to rid themselves of the catroonish profiles.  Didn't need caricatures of leaders in Civ I-V, why they added them in Civ VI is beyond me.  I play Civ V almost every day.

Other ideas, some made by other posters above, that I would like to see:

• Drop the 1 unit per hex limit.  If you have to have stacking limits, make them dependent on a nearby leader's abilities.
• More military leaders.  1 per continent (+) just isn't enough.  Armies don't fight by themselves.
• Remove the ranged attacks.  It tries to mix tactical and strategic functions into a single map and just doesn't feel right.  Never has.
• More consistent time.  The 1 turn = 25 years in the early game that progresses into 1 turn = 1 year in the later game tends to de-emphasize the ancient part of the game.  Yes, it would make games potentially much longer, but that can present a more realistic picture (simulation) of the ancient era.
• More randomization in the tech tree and more cultural 'specialization', not just 1 tech and 1 unit per civilization.  Ability to 'learn' foreign techs.
• Remove the hexs in place of territory maps.  Resources and other 'map features' or improvements should be in territories,  Again, this points to trying to mix tactical and strategic functions onto a single map.
  

There's a distinct probability that I won't be purchasing Civ VII simply due to financial considerations, but especially if is simply more of the same that Civ VI delivered.  They need to resurrect some of the old game mechanics, particularly the 'castle' achievement from Civ I-III.

cant agree with the stacking units and no ranged, the limits and ranged make it more strategic, leaving stacking up just make it be a production vs production power, removing hexes also not a good thing, it would make it smaller in scale and again limit strategic combat,

the year per turn is more like how the pace was in older time to today, today we have a lot of information going, things who happen today in any place in the world we can know in the hour, with was diferent in older times, it would take months or weeks IF at all, so this diference kinda fits

Ranged attacks (bows through tanks) are tactical.  They simply don't fire at 100s of kms that the average hex covers.  That is mixing tactical functions onto a strategic scale.

Many other games operate at a strategic level for army movement and a tactical level for fighting.  The various Romance of the Three Kingdoms did this quite well, even if exploding to the tactical map was a bit rough.

There are other ways to represent ranged attacks, though.  Currently, it would be more likely to have cavalry (and motorized) units be able to project their power at a distance.

----------

As far as pace goes, when your classical Greek civilization is very hard pressed to adopt Democracy before 1000 AD (in Civ I), that tends to minimize the accomplishments of the ancient civilizations.  Alexander the Great roamed a good portion of the known world on horseback in a single lifetime.  Try to discover a similar amount on foot or mounted at the age of 32.  (By the way, that's less than 2 turns at the start of the game).

A year was still a year in 2000 BC, the same as today.  I'm not advocating for a 1 turn = 1 year.  But condensing the people of the ancient eras into a 1 turn = 25 years rate diminishes their accomplishments.  Imagine!  Building the Pyramids in 2 turns!

quix0te

Any possibility of asynchronous multiplayer/pbem options being supported?
Not default gameplay of course, but some option to encourage weeks or months-long games.

MikeB

quix0te said:

Any possibility of asynchronous multiplayer/pbem options being supported?
Not default gameplay of course, but some option to encourage weeks or months-long games.

VI has it! Play by Cloud. You get a Steam notification when it's your turn.

Scot

MikeB said:

quix0te said:

Any possibility of asynchronous multiplayer/pbem options being supported?
Not default gameplay of course, but some option to encourage weeks or months-long games.

VI has it! Play by Cloud. You get a Steam notification when it's your turn.

I understand you can do this in Civ 4 and 5 possibly all the others as well. Not sure if it uses Steam mind you, or if you get the wonderful benefits of the "cloud".

AugustusG

Less cartoony will be good. I dont like the kid design of the 6.

Iselin

I have nothing particularly insightful or useful to say about Civ VI vs. V and earlier only to say that VI was gifted to me by my son when it released and I have less than 50 hours in it to this day.

By contrast Steam tells me I have more than 5,500 hours in Civ V which I play daily still.

VI just didn't click with me so I'm highly skeptical that VII will.

RolanStorm

More unusual features like secret societies.

Tiller

I stopped playing around launch due to the issues with religion being too OP early in game. The only way to win was to build it up as fast as you could and spam out missionaries and spread it to your opposition. Not sure if they fixed it, but I haven't reinstalled it since.

Cryomatrix

I liked the 1upt a lot. I played mainly civ IV and V, i have VI, but cartoon graphics and all and other games prevented me from playung it. 

Alverant

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I got some ideas. Some will contradict others and some might be too complicated to implement for developers or use for players.

A compromise between 1UPT and doomstack by allowing up to four units (of any type) per tile with certain tech developments. Have guards for workers/settlers. Have multiple workers on the same project. Have a general and their elite units. Combine swordsman and archers for a good 1-2 punch when attacking.

Add types (military, civil, financial) to items on a tech tree

Have non-education buildings contribute to research into different research types (barracks adds to researching military topics, banks help with financial topics, etc)

Let cities build multiple things at once, have a slider to control how much of city resources go to each item.

Workers can be used to sabotage enemy defenses and support ally units during city sieges. (It happened in real history with tunnelers collapsing enemy walls.)

Great Engineers improve worker output in a 3 hex radius

Mendel

Alverant said:

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I got some ideas. Some will contradict others and some might be too complicated to implement for developers or use for players.

A compromise between 1UPT and doomstack by allowing up to four units (of any type) per tile with certain tech developments. Have guards for workers/settlers. Have multiple workers on the same project. Have a general and their elite units. Combine swordsman and archers for a good 1-2 punch when attacking.

Add types (military, civil, financial) to items on a tech tree

Have non-education buildings contribute to research into different research types (barracks adds to researching military topics, banks help with financial topics, etc)

Let cities build multiple things at once, have a slider to control how much of city resources go to each item.

Workers can be used to sabotage enemy defenses and support ally units during city sieges. (It happened in real history with tunnelers collapsing enemy walls.)

Great Engineers improve worker output in a 3 hex radius

Civ III had armies that were created by great generals.  These allowed up to 4 normal units to join together and fight as a unit.  I don't remember how damage was distributed across the member units.  Armies might have been a good idea, but were just too difficult to get, especially early in the game.

The doom stack is an issue.  I'd rather see units have different sizes, with terrain having a maximum capacity.  The range attacks over hexes that are supposed to represent 50-150 km (depending on map size and edition) are seriously screwy.