The thing that makes me most frustrated in Civ 6 is that when another civ attacks one of my vassal city states there is nothing I can do about that except declare a war that gives me infamy rather than the bully civ. In previous Civ games I could at least gift powerful units. I want more options, both diplomatic and military to defend my vassals.
The warmonger stuff in civ 6 makes no sense. All the AI will denounce you for doing the same things they are doing. Imo, the only time they should denounce or declare war over "warmongering" is if the player attacks one of their allies.
Declaring war on your ally city state, gives you 50 grievances, denouncing and then declaring a war of protection gives them only 25 grievances. I still want the unit donation to come back, but you dont generate grievances for helping a city state
@Grant Todd It sucks because military conquest is the most fun way to play imo. But you can't do it without every other civ going against you. Meanwhile the others civs declare war on each other and take cities yet no one cares except the civ being attacked.
I hope civ 7 is nothing like the horrific civ 6. The best ever made was civ 5 on every level and i know the number of people more support civ 6 because alot of these people are new players to the "Civilization" series and go with 'whats new" not knowing the older versions provide a better experience and stick to their roots that made them to popular to this day. Change to much and watch your company dwindle.
@@rjmeeker89 omg ikr, what about being denounced by civs for wars that happened hundreds of turns ago when neither you nor the civ you went to war with even knew of you lol.
Yeah I noticed the AI aren't consistently the same power and most just give up of fighting and military so fighting them is boring and they have like 3-6 units only, they rarely use air units too
11:28 I think it would be cool if you could trade for specific tiles in peace treaties but not actually take a city. that way it might be more viable to go for smaller wars over smaller bits of land if you need like 1 specific luxury or something.
This is a great idea. My biggest concern is whether the AI would be able to handle the added complexity. This is one of the biggest problems in Civ: as the game has gotten more and more complex, the AI struggles to keep up.
Uuuu i like your idea. Also i would like for ai to do the same, if you have stratgey resource they woukd wanna get it, either war or trade or diplomacy
@@roberthartmanleonard3349 - We're also in a new dawn of AI where this wouldn't actually have to be coded, it could be developed with a 'hive mind' mentality where literally millions of hours of human input could be utilized to determine the most viable actions. Essentially we're going to hit a scenario where we won't actually know if online multiplayer is actually human or not.
I hope they bring back the ability to have your workers automatically improve tiles. It becomes so tedious in mid and late game to improve and repair every tile in a vast empire.
@@KendrickJ2 Well they also reworked the builder system, so you can only use each builder a limited amount of times, therefor its not really that bad, and setting it to auto would be way more detrimental than in earlier games, since each builder charge is very valuable
@@jonny-b4954 Civ 6 gets even worse, in TSL map you can see London from Aachen... The English channel isn't that small yet the map is called "huge". Wtf were they thinking man?
I always felt the domination victory should be focused on territory owned rather than capturing every capital. Capturing capitals is a fairly artificial feeling win condition, because it doesn't even require you to capture any other cities. If it's based on territory owned, not only does it feel more organic, but it also opens up new ways for people to win the victory. You can play every other victory type passively or aggressively, the only civ who can really play a passive dom victory is Eleanor, and even then it's pretty gimmicky. It'd still certainly make aggression the best course to the victory type, since you can take land owned by others, but it puts focus off of capturing other people's lands and expanding your own lands in whatever means necessary.
well, in the old times, you need to capture first the capital to show you dominate a specific race.. maybe a culture or a research to change the win condition on domination victory
pre civ5 we had conquest (eliminating civs) and domination (have 60%+ of all owned land or something) and it got kinda smooshed together into claiming capitals partially because if you were going for either of these, you needed to eliminate/capture enemy capitals often anyway because they were the strongest, so it ends up being the same if we do get a 'land% based domination' victory back again, what it needs to include is civ4's vassalage mechanics, so that you can vassal defeated players and have their land count as yours for it
The most fun I've had has been in Civ 4. I know that brings absolute disgust to some, but I enjoyed the auto workers. It helped me not feel so bogged down in middle/end game when my city sprawl got so large. My brother and I could sit down and go through a coop multiplayer game in a somewhat timely fashion. Things went faster. I also was much more impressed with the AI in civ 4. I liked all diplomacy and AI decisions in civ 4 much much more than civ 6. Not perfect, but something just clicked with me in civ 4.
There's an Auto-Worker/Archaeologist mod that takes care of that. And that's the #1 thing these devs need to do - take a look at the ~100 highest-use mods. Don't re-invent the wheel when someone has already given you a car.
I'd take it further, making the difficulty customization even more granular, like in games such as Distant Worlds 2. So you might be able to adjust difficulty settings like: AI CiV Aggression, Barbarian Aggression, World Anxiety Level, World Trust, AI economic skill, AI science skill, and AI faith focus.
The AI was too difficult on the easiest setting in civ 6. Needs to be like in civ rev so that new players get some space to breath and learn how to play without getting steamrolled.
Cheating AI (including just different starts) is something strategy games did two decades ago. At this point it's practically unacceptable to release a game with such AI, yet civ still does it. What's confusing about this is that civ is practically made for AI to work well with, it'd be really simple to make different AIs for their games
Climatic change was already in Civ 2. Once you generated enough pollution, you could get these major events where coastal tiles disappeared, grassland turned into plains, and plains turned into deserts. You also had the ability for engineer units (upgraded workers) to change tiles into another type, which meant you could reverse the effects of global warming to a large degree with some effort. This might be an interesting addition to the next Civ version as a late game concept.
@@danyoutube7491 You're right. I found the game manual online. It says: "Effects: Global warming causes geographic changes throughout the world. Deserts, Plains, and Grasslands on coasts may become Swamps, and coastal Forests may become Jungles. Plains, Grasslands, and Forests in the interior may become Deserts. The result is much lower food, industry, and trade for your civilization. Your environmental advisors report immediately if global warming has occurred. The effect is always bad, but in the case of flooded coastal areas you may improve Jungles and Swamps over time. Causes: Global warming may occur if at least nine map squares, anywhere in the world, are currently polluted. If they are left unattended for too long, environmental damage occurs. Once an environmental disaster has occurred, the cycle starts over again. The planet has achieved equilibrium at the new higher temperatures. If pollution continues or increases once more to high levels, another bout of environmental problems may occur. This cycle may repeat endlessly if pollution is not controlled."
@@Griexxt I thought so :) I vaguely remember it happening, there was an icon that appeared in the grey menu bar I think, indicating how bad it was getting.
@@danyoutube7491 It's not easy to remember things from a game we played 30 years ago. 🙂I tried an online emulation of the original DOS game a few years ago, but it crashed on my system before I got very far.
geography changes would be awesome, i am so tired of having large blob continents and rivers that can be used for units should have some naval ships allowed in, which would make trading and war so much more interesting, maybe with a "grand bridge" district you can connect opposite sides of a strait, in my opinion just having a larger map with larger cities would make world generation much more creative and having a larger scale without the penalties of small cities would be awesome
yup, also the ability to annex tiles rather than entire city, bring back civ 5 puppet state feature and add cultural features like language that you culture bomb a city easier Most importantly for me is having the option to speed up the AI turn because at the end of the game it gets realllly slow
@@aigabylikhsanov6577 Probably there could be a resolution in the world Congress to vote on a global currency and it could become an international exchange currency.
@@khosrowanushirwan7591 i like this! Bring back economic victories. Win it by achieving the most valuable currency for a certain amount of turns (perhaps 20) after the IMF is established, allowing you to make your currency the global currency. Or perhaps, you can win it by having a certain amount more of your currency being held in foreign bank accounts than any other.
I would love a ridiculously large map that is practically impossible to cover with primitive units but fairly simple with modern air units. I'd LIKE to see minor technological improvements, such as the transition from matchlock to flintlock providing a tiny improvement over basic muskets. I'd also LIKE to see incemenetal technological and societal inspirations from coming into contact with other civilizations' units.
the problem with super large maps is that you're looking at significant performance issues, and it pads out the game into the forever realm. interactions between civs could take so long to even start to occur
To be honest I kind of preferred it when a city only took up one tile, but you could have towns between them. It just seems more realistic than Civ 6 cities which are the side of a small country, and have tiles spread out all over the place, not even necessarily connected. But I do get how the placement of districts adds something to the game too.
To add a contrary opinion: I think that Civilization would be better with *fewer* victory conditions. They have really gone down the rabbit hole of adding more and more victory conditions over the years, and I just don't think it's ever made the game better. In some ways, it's made it worse. The way Civ works now, you really need to have a victory condition in mind on turn one--before turn one, even, because your choice of nation is going to be primarily driven by what victory condition you plan to pursue. So instead of opening up the game to more play styles, it effectively narrows it, because in any given game you are going to be focusing on just one thing (it's possible to pivot to a different victory condition mid-game, sure, but it's highly sub-optimal--especially on higher difficulties). The original Civilization had just one victory condition: survive until the end of the game. Any game in which you did that was a "win," and then you'd get ranked against all the other surviving factions based on points. Points came from a wide variety of different things, so it was still a game that allowed you to pursue different strategies, and on top of that it was much more amenable to mid-game shifts in strategy, or even mixing and matching. I feel like Humankind tapped into the Civ I energy with its victory points system, and I hope the Civ VII team looks at that game and takes the lesson that when it comes to victory conditions, more is not necessarily better.
I agree more isn't necessary better, but at the same time being able to choose from a selection of victory conditions is highly appreciated. It's not like you have to play with all victory conditions enabled
I like the way ck3 handles it. Needing to pursue certain criteria in order to win can feel limiting after you've done them all before and you just want to play/experiment. It's more fun to "win" in my own mind, and quit the game after I've enjoyed myself. Rather than win because I rushed down a certain path to get a screen to popup before I run out of time.
I get what your saying but at the same time since the game doesn’t force you to play with all of the victory conditions on it does kinda moot your point. If you want to do a religious victory you just turn off everything else, maybe leave something like domination or score on just in case you want to change up your goal mid game. But I like the current system better because if I want to try for a culture victory I can turn off the others instead of going 400 turns just for the ai to win with score or diplomacy
can you imagine if Fireaxis made a chess game? The difficulty scale would work like this: For each difficulty setting you play against a retarded pigeon, but the higher difficulty settings means the pigeon gets to spawn in extra queens every few turns.
It's been years since we've had a civ game where the AI could destroy us militarily. Civ 4 was the last time. People bitched about "doom stacks" but it's far more realistic to have an army of soldiers than to have 1 unit per tile, when the tiles are each several kilometers in size.
I would love to see more realistic looking leaders rather than the cartoons we have on civ 6. I reckon it might be an unpopular opinion, but I dislike how the leader design currently is, Wilhelmina for example.
While I do like the cartoon leaders better, I can see both sides. To some the cartoons looks weird, goofy, and unrealistic, compared to say the civ 5 leaders. But others find that the realistic look of civ 5 is kind of weird, cluttered, and dark/depressing compared to the cartoon look of civ 6. It would be nice to be able to switch between the two styles in one game, but that’s probably too much to ask for
Idk I actually prefer civ 6's style l. Civ 5's more "realistic" look (it gets called that but it's not really more realistic) comes across as very bland imo. At the very least I hope they retain the animated aspect of civ 6, having movement and facial reactions to the leaders gives a whole different feel
The biggest thing they could do is take their time and listen to community feedback. Let people play-test the game long before the features are set in stone. IMHO, Civ 4 was the peak of the series, and while I like SOME of the things they tried to do in both 5 and 6, they both felt like they weren't fully thought out yet. To me, they lacked the "one more turn" addictiveness, and felt more like they were trying to simplify things too much, while at the same time obfuscating how the AI was cheating.
The problem with that is that the community isn't game designers, what one person wants is rarely what everybody wants, so the best bet is letting professionals who are educated, do the jib, since they often know better than the community what they want
Or do what they did in the first two games - stack as much as you like but unless you are in a city or a fort a single loss to an attack would cost you the whole stack. Maybe with a stack bonus which is the other units helping the main defender which diminishes (second unit adds x, third adds a smaller number, forth maybe adds something if you have a general or special policy or something - the others try not to get in the way...).
Remember to stacks in civ III and the stack attacked one unit at a time. I use the Aztecs attack my cities with 50 units and have to wait for the city to fall or the game to cycle through all 50.
2 things for me. It would be three but he already talked about commerce victory which I would DOMINATE in that aspect because I'm economically conscious in my games. 1) There needs to be a better way to defend yourself. I will have other nations bully me and declare war on me, then complain when I take some cities and refuse to release them back. I don't think every civ should be okay with another civ taking someone else's cities, but I don't imagine EVERY civilization would care. Some would even support it if they were already enemies to each other. The fact my allies who also hated the same civ that I destroyed now hates me is ludicrous and doesn't make any strategic sense. 2) Please bring back map sharing. I really could care less about circumnavigating the world and it just feels like a chore to me. It'd make more sense to meet civs and share your maps at the time of trade with each other. I loved that in civ 3 (with my brief time playing the game) and feel it would be best to have it back.
@@AdamsBrew78 Preach. I would pay more for a Civ 4 remake. Update graphics, improve AI, and maybe a few other things but thats it. Ditch the single unit tile and ditch buildings/wonders on tiles.
Beyond Earth's orbital layer added a lot of depth to city development, info gathering, landscaping, and military strategies. While it'd be harder to make this system work in Civ 7 given the more limited technology and the fact it could only be available in the late game, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the devs take another shot at it.
Two things that would make me want to try a new CIV game: 1: Less cartoony, more serious tone, if I wanted to play fortnite, I can go play fortnite 2: More serious and in depth game design, CIV 4 is a great example, it was an absolute gem in a stack of coal, the newer CIV games seem catered toward a wider but shallower crowd, those types of customers will play these new CIV games for 200-500 hours max (being really generous here) then will lose interest and move on to other games, meanwhile the narrower but much more loyal customers, will make CIV 4 reach 2,000 peak on Steam charts TWENTY YEARS after its launch
One think i'd like to add is they need to find a way to make controlling a lot of units every turn easier. Like being able to select multiple units at once and send them to a general are on the map, kinda like an RTS game. In Civ V it gets extremely annoying having to send your 25 battleships back home one by one after a war has ended.
@@somecuriosities The idea that you need to manually build and control individual units on tiles instead of having warfare be more abstract is starting to seem pretty outdated.
There should be three different sizes of river tile. Small, medium which would allow viking ships, and ships up to the size of a Carrack to travel up them. Than large ones that ships up to the size of a modern destroyer can sail up.
I continue to come back to Civ IV, mainly because of some mods that I love, C2C and Realism Invictus, they make the game a lot more of a sandbox for me, I don't really focus to much in the victory condition, I just prefer to enjoy the experience of building up my civilization. If I could suggest changes to Civ VII those would be my main ones, make possible for me to immerse myself like that, make governments and policies really matter, make plots be like they where in Civ IV where I could slowly take over with culture or like some mods did, make that in case of war a could claim tiles that I have occupied, then integrate that into the diplomacy like Stellaris where I go to war based on claims the I have placed over territories, tiles, regions or cities. I know that are people who want the fast paced game and they should be able to play that way to, but for people like me who love to micromanage and imagine the story unfolding in the map should have that too. Policies and governments should matter, population should too, they should have preferences based on their history and we should be fight for hearts and minds as well as for territory or resources. And globe maps would be great too.
Even without mods, I think Civ IV is the apex Civ so far. Only thing that V and VI have over it is hexes. We already fantasized about globe maps when Civ V was coming out. Maybe this time...
A better world builder option would be great! I love creating my huge world maps and building expansive world empires (like the British Empire was in real life for example). Taking years (in game) and even centuries to explore the entire map.
I hope they improve the war strategy of the Ai. I actually want a challenge, not just more units to fight. Maybe utilize some of this new Ai software that’s come out recently?
8:00 add a loaning system, as part of the economic victory, once your currency starts dominating you need a majority of civilizations to be indebted to you. Like people, have the ai take loan risks, if they go through unforeseen circumstances and can’t pay it off can settle with lands or cities. Would assume you’d have to create a peace treaty with the loan. But you could bribe other countries to make war with them so they go broke, can’t pay you back, and then cede their territories. A lot of stuff that could be implemented for economics and victories, would love to see it.
Dear Sid/ Firaxis, my wish list would be: TRIPLE the steps on the science/ tech tree, plus TRIPLE the discoveries/ inventions/ advances on the culture tree. Make these tree's future improvements hidden, except for the player's current choices. Provide more wonders to be built and natural wonders to be discovered. Make it quicker to build spies (and allow each civ more spies, they take too long to get built and do anything worthwhile). A game play option for a lot longer early era, I love discovering the map and starting out the civilisation. A city view where you can see how your city would look with all the all the buildings, improvements and wonders (a previous Civ had this). Next, lots more scenery/ landscape options; plateaus, karst scenery, impenetrable rainforest, dangerous reefs (sinks ships), lots of variety in hills, mountains, glaciers, swamps and mangroves etc. Also, perhaps a slow, gradual change in some landscape tiles to reflect changing climate. Finally, I would love to see a detailed map choice of the UK & Ireland (with coastline Europe), or just Africa (etc.), detailed continent maps including a Pacific Ocean map with a few isolated islands. It is the richness and depth of the experience during playing that will keep us coming back for more.
So, if I had to provide a list of my most desired features for Civilization 7, it'd probably be the following: 1. As I said previously, completely overhaul the entire Barbarian/City-State system, and make it much more dynamic (in the spirit of the Barbarian Clans mode, with a large dose of Humankind & Civilization V thrown into the mix). 2. Bringing back the best aspects of the Culture Systems of Civ4 & Civ5: Brave New World (especially in terms of expanding theming bonuses for Great Works across a number of different Buildings & Wonders). 3. Implement a rudimentary migration system-both intra-civ & inter-civ. 4. Expand on the Independant Cities mechanic of Rise & Fall. Allowing us to have diplomatic relations with Independant Cities, and the potential for Independant Cities to evolve into either Minor or Major Civilizations. 5. Expand even further on the Ages system from Rise & Fall. 6. Expand and Flesh out the mechanics introduced in Monopolies, Industries & Corporations.....and tie that into a potential Economic Victory. 7. An Events system in the mold of Humankind and/or Old World. 8. Make improvements to the Religion System. Make Pagan Religions even more in-depth, give State Religion more impact on Diplomacy and Internal Politics (a la Civ4), and have the potential for proper Heresies and Schisms that could lead to the creation of Cults or even whole new Religions over which the player doesn't have initial control (some of these ideas come from Old World's most recent expansion). Anyway, just a thought.
Maybe they'll finally wise up and get rid of that 1 unit per tile experiment they started with Civ 5. That might have sounded like a nice idea for tactical combat, but it makes moving units around just way too tedious. After all, they'll have to move to get to combat too and traffic jams are not fun. Maybe they'll copy Amplitude's model and have tactical combat phase on the main map.
Civ IV had land changes, like deserts and things come in not just sea level rise. There's a lot of great stuff from IV that was dropped that could be brought back
It would be nice to see more unique units per civ. And more modern units. It felt like they gave up in civ 6. You get the b52 jet bomber. But there isn't an upgrade to the stealth bomber like in civ 5. Plus, the aircraft carriers could have multiple upgrades like they did in real life. How about a battleship that can launch a scout plane like in ww2?
I hope they improve the styling/art direction. Maybe an art style akin to Humankind, or the diorama/tilt shift/realism of the new Ara: Untold that’s coming out next year. At minimum, I would love to see a proper city sprawl.
I've wanted an Economic Victory condition since Civ 6 launched. Someone made a 30 minute video about how an economic victory could work in Civ 6, but sadly he isn't a mod maker. Still hoping someone takes his idea and turns it into a mod.
I would love to see more customization to the difficulty settings, maybe rivers can actually be traversed in game, like in real life the vikings raided not only cosstal cities, but they would travel the river connecting the baltic sea and black sea and would raid byzantine lands in turkey because of the river connection. I also think a addition to war and TREATIES would be amazing. Like if I win a war against another civ, instead of just making peace and taking some gold for 30 turns, perhaps there could be 5 turns which are the meeting turns where everyone who participated in the war gets a say of what they get out of winning and what the losers lose from losing. Maybe that could build more tensions with civs and kind of makes war more interesting rather than just pillage tiles, conquer cities, and repeat.
I definitely think there should be different river stats. Was thinking wide, narrow, deep and shallow, so wide and deep should be traversable by all naval units but they take up a full tile. The generation should be done so rivers start as shallow and narrow they get larger until they get to a lake or sea.
My list: 1. get rid of city pressure. I hate capturing a city only for it to flip a few turns later. 2. Realistic graphics would be awesome, I hate the cartoon style of six. 3. Spherical map... surely this is a must for seven!
Civ is one of my favorite game series of all time. I know there's not much of a difference between the versions anymore. The biggest change for me was 3 to 4 and 4 to 5. All I want is for them to put in a chatgpt level of conversational ability to the AI. If they can do that and tie it to the mindsets and play styles associated with each leader traditionally I would be sooo happy. And if you could randomize mindsets for leaders that would be even better. Imagine the fun of a throwback to a nuke crazy ghandi if you randomize the personalities so you get a hyper aggressive ghandi and a super friendly ghengis Khan. Omg I would play thousands of house on that game.
@@PetePretorius I think you might be right because I vaguely remember having this option already and having fun with it because it would mess with the balance of certain AI and create new play styles
The one thing I think will make Civ much more interesting to play is migration between cities. Your city can lose a citizen (which will be gained by a better city if there is one) because there are not enough jobs (you neglected to develop e.g. an industrial zone.. I mean, various buildings and districts can provide dfferent amounts of jobs), or because of other things (entertainment, culture.. you name it. Every city will have a livability index, determined by all of those things, when it gets much lower than other cities, your citizens will start migrating). Another thing I'd like to see: cultural effects other than tourism. Just like in the real world a country can influence another culturally without having to attract tourists - e.g. through television, cinema (also that'd be a great building for the entertainment complex!), music, and whtanot. About economic victory conditions - I have an idea - coutries can have different currencies and their exchange rates can be a factor. p.s. another thing I'd like to see: cultural influence should affect war weariness. As in, if my citizens think highly of e.g. French culture, than it should make it harder to declare war on france, because they won't like it.
I would like to see Civ 7 give an option to play back Civ 1 rule sets and settings but in modern day graphics. This means no borders, natural disasters (preventable with certain buildings), palace screen/improvements, the number of advisors standing behind the leader indicating how strong/big the civ is, etc.
I would like to see muffled victory modes. Basically disable a victory like religious for example. It doesn’t completely go away, but if you accomplish religious victory first, it doubles your power towards all other victories that are enabled.
I wish all resources would be useful through all game. For example horses could be luxury resource in modern era. Maybe add production chains like iron + coal = steel etc.
Hot Take: Release a fully playable, good game, and just do one or two major dlcs that add depth and balace to the game and call it a day. I wasn't aware of the leader pack mini dlc. Everything about Civ 6 has disapointed me. Civ 5, while not the most popular game in the franchise, is the most enjoyable to play, followed by 4.
What will make it amazing for me is a large true start real earth map that is updated by the devs as content, civs, natural wonders etc. Like the modders do but from the start of the game being released and supported. This would not be hard, it just needs modder community engagement. It could also have a random start option of course. Also, no bugs/crashes.
Mh... I played all Civ games, including Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth. My absolute favorite is Civ IV... played it to death. I never got into Civ V and VI. I acknowledge their popularity but I don't really get it. Felt "floaty", if that makes sense... not really PC games but mobile games. The scope felt micro compared to previous iterations. I loved to really mass up my forces and steam role my opponents. Also I liked how the towns you could built with your workers in IV (not cities) would grow over time and generate as much money as gold mines. Civ IV already wasn't as large (map size) as the older games. But with V and VI it really felt like board games. Usually couldn't built more than maybe 4 - 5 cities... simply didn't look like an "empire". I had the impression I was playing something like "Catan". I hope they go back to the more "epic" scope and a bit of organic growth like with the towns in IV. Maybe make mines become more experienced after a while and generate more production etc.
4 is very good, lots of great solo and multi-player hours with that version for sure. I prefer 5 myself, and never got into 6 at all. Like you say the perk cards gave a board game feel to it. Couldn't stand the cartoony aesthetic, and the fact that you had to but a district before making buildings. Anyway, hope they find a way to improve with 7, but I won't be pre-purchasing after the disappointment of 6.
Some of the most epic coop/multiplayer experiences ive had in video games came from Civ 4. One time I had to basically blaze a trail through a nation to get to my brother while he was being attacked. If I hadn't done that he would have lost for sure. It felt faster paced, not so hard on micro if you didn't want it to be. Felt like I had the strategic component, but without feeling so bogged down with each turn feeling like a chore. Dont get me wrong, there are some amazing things in civ 6, I have played it a ton. My experiences have been very different tho. Not as exciting.
Reserve currency would be really interesting and make the game a lot more strategic. Such as being able to influence the interest rates, and other economic policies that can influence what your opponents gain from trade routes, along with providing certain privileges to the player who gets to control the currency by changing interest rates etc. Which would make going for that control a lot more rewarding
Civ4 AI was pretty good. It started off as a Fan mod but was later included as part of the main game in the expansions (BTS Beyond the Sword). ie It actually had fairly good city placement (ie not 1 tile away from the coast), escorted Settlers with military units, Actually attempted other victory conditions not called the Space Race.
Agreed more civ 5 style with more modern graphics. If I build an army I want to see a full tile of multiple soldiers not 3 or 4 troops the same look at a normal trooper
Sid Meier's - Colonization... We need a remake using a new engine that improve both things. (Improve trading and several stages of independency are my takes around that game title) For civilization a game I haven't touch in years I say a good taking is adding a WW1 system that force war against different continents a way to open the maps further once travel to sea is discover and foot is set on the new continent. Or just an alien invasion as end-game feature xD
This might be to much but I would love to see border disputes and disputed border mechanics. Probably you could do this with this cultural influence mechanic you described.
Marathon 2.0, play every month in-game. Adventure mode. Tactical combat mode option. Create a civilization. Ai "power scaler" per ai civs. Super tech shuffle, no one has the v same tech tree. Segmented tech cards, you may gain benefits from tech research in a staggered and selective manner, but need to unlock 100% to gain benefits.
Better victory and defeat screens would be nice. I liked the older versions with the graphic that showed how each civ expanded on the map as time progressed. Maybe even a way to "rewind" and watch your game over or watch specific battles.
What I'd like to see are: 1) Customizable units. So every time you play, your units take on different attributes. There's speed, of course, and strength, range, movements per turn, but I'm sure there could be other things. 2) Fighting that is a little more obvious. Civ 5 I found there wasn't much point in attacking before you got artillery. Taking a city would lose too many units. Civ 6 the early game is great, and then when you get to artillery era, then it becomes a lot harder to take cities. Even with a civilization that is basically dead, no troops, it'll still take 50 years to take their cities. 3) Area you control is much more fluid. For example, a city goes out three hexes, but you might control land that isn't a part of a city. In the real world, this land would still be used, still be a part of your agricultural process. Perhaps they could have food delivery from cities. The further away, the more times it takes, so that you can control your empire as an empire, rather than as individual cities. 4) Starting with an era where you don't settle. Spending time to find a good starting location, instead of finding you have a rubbish location and restarting the game over and over. I know Humankind does something like this. But there are plenty of ways of doing this to be different.
It would be awesome to have an overhaul of the military gameplay like humankind and more dynamic typography where you can really see the effects of having the high ground or have to deal with narrow caverns and cliffs. I think its the two greatest things humankind got right. Like Jumbo said rivers, hill, and cliffs where fundamental in military and society.
- They should return to Sid's philosophy of gameplay transparency: Communicate all the consequences of player's actions. Quite often in Civ 6 where you have to know the game well in order to grasp the consequences of your action, e.g. when you can gain Era Score in Rise & Fall, AI diplomacy, trade routes, city pressure. I don't like reading the civilopedia, they should do more in-game tooltips, and often Civ 6's Civilopedia is very blurry in explaining gameplay mechanics. They often teached it the lazy way of "it is the way it is, just learn by doing". I think changing this attiude would be huge, since it'd both make the game more accessible for new players as well as more engaging for intermediate players. Right now I'd say Civ 6 is played too much by "Pros" - which the player number shown in the video that never reached the peak from release seems to indicate. - Less but more nuanced decisions: Primary example for how this feels bad in Civ 6 is the huge optionality that you get for a Pantheon. Often players will stick to one of their, like, 4 or 5 favorites. I'd prefer less options that are really set apart (like the free Settler/ Builder option they added later). Another example is Civics cards. They can be interesting, but often they are too small-scale of a decision to make me really care about it. I have fond memories of the civics in Civ 4 where you had 5 areas with up to different choices that made for radical gameplay differences. - More nuanced Civilizations: This one is a common demand i guess; they made some experiments in the last couple of Civ games, I would like to see more terrain-related things that they tried in Civ 6 with the Inka (making mountains interesting was such a genious twist), the Maori, Mali or Russia. But also more radically different civs like they did in Civ 5 with Venice. - Maybe even some mutually exclusive parts of the Tech/ Civics tree: I think it would be interesting if research was not just a race where everyone would get everything in the tree in the end but your research choices should have long-term consequences. Maybe a more strict version of what they did with Heurekas, like, you can only access this part of the tech tree if you haven't declared war to someone (or another part that you can only access if you have), with some long-term benefits you are going to miss out on (say, the "farming triangle bonus"). Or a binary choice, you can either research this or that, giving you two alternative types of buildings or improvements. This could lead to more unique-feeling games. They did a bit of that with the Gouvernment plaza buildings in Rise and Fall, but I'd like to see this as more of a core gameplay feature. - Gold: You shouldn't be able to buy everything with Gold. It just makes every game too samey. Maybe this could be a special ability that is unlocked somewhere (again reminding me of Civ 4's "civics"): You can buy buildings for Gold if you have this tech, you are able to speed up wonders with Gold if you have a golden age/ a specific Civ power, you can buy Trade Routes if you have a certain wonder/ gouvernment type etc. For sure some things should always be buyable, maybe military units and city tiles, but even that isn't set in stone. Wow, this became quite an essay and I don't even think it is exhaustive... Really interesting question. Thanks for doing the video!
That tech tree suggestion was interesting. I'd also like to see it that "falling behind" changes. If your civilization invents the wheel, why does the civilization next over have to start from scratch on that too? Techs should slowly spread on their own and the first to get it gain a bonus. Sure, one can still work on the tech then, but doesn't have too. It would also lead to some interesting things concerning "isolated" civs, which don't benefit from technology drift - nor do they benefit others (if they take an early lead). That'd put it more into the VictoriaII type of tech tree, where being first was the actual reward
Monopolies and Corporations mode would be a great template for economic victory. Control of a certain percentage of luxuries, and building economic infrastructure and goods. Similar to science victory, this could culminate in a race to build economic superprojects/superproducts. Using the tourism mechanic, economic pressure against other civs could grow to levels where the victory condition includes a level of economic dominance over the other civs. Would probably take a dedicated dev (maybe team, idk how the economics of game MAKING works) to properly balance, but I don't think the mechanics would be too difficult to be practical.
Few comments here. 1) Regarding main game being content coming out, it would never be free initial cost, but ongoing support over years definitely isnt bad. I would like to see them take inspiration from Stellaris. I'm loving how for years now they drop new content yearly from one team while a 2nd team works on updating existing content to be better in line with the new releases or just overhauling systems that need improvement. It is such a GREAT system id love to see Civ 7 try if they intend to commit to this long term support like that did for Civ 6. 2) I havnt really liked recent 4X games based on history. I find they all try the same thing and somehow it bores me, they try for such intense realism that i just dont want to bother micromanaging it. So for Civ 7 i really would like to see them try something unique that isnt just a reskinned humankind or any of the other latest 4X games. 3) Districts and civ 6 workers, i hate them. I play civ 5 instead of 6 specifically because i cant automate workers and i need to actually use my brain for districts when im half asleep usually during games. Since i prefer macro play over micro play i would prefer some uh, more noob friendly tweaks for the next game would be greatly appreciated. 4) maps, improved ai, economic victory, better diplomacy, and proper multiplayer support that you mentioned i loved it. More real geography would need some serious scripting cause if they go for real geography and it becomes annoying i wouldnt like it. so for example if we get tile wide rivers, id like they to give us the ability to build bridges with workers (or cities). If we get more volcanos and mountains or nature disasters i would like more things to actually interact and adapt with this. I really dont like games going for realistic maps but giving you absolutely nothing to interact with them. 5) Even in civ 6 i find barbarians kind of dull. Maybe civ 7 could implement a more interesting barb faction. My personal thoughts? allow them to have cities and armies, maybe they are scattered like small tribes bur they still have cultural borders. They would be like half way between a city state and normal AI. (speaking of which, id like better city states). I think to the aliens in civ beyond earth that massed lots of units in jungles and oceans and you had to learn to live with them or clear them out. That sort of thing would be cool. Or possibly like marauding empires in stellaris, basically raiding military factions that have closed borders and there is a chance the clans unite and turn into a great khan in the mid game. its a really fun distraction in the mid game before you get to end game chaos. Heck could be a game mode where we play as cave men up to medieval age and have to deal with lots of animals. 6) Not gonna lie id like a option for end game crisis, we talking plagues, alien invasions, zombies, ect, within the base game. similar to what civ 6 has, but only spawning in end game and causing map wide devastation. 7) If another long term game is planned then some spin off games would be appreciated. Civ in space, Civ in other worlds, Civ in time lines with magic and mythological animals/gods/ect. Just so that we have some interesting smaller games to play while the main ones are always there being updated.
Get rid of the asset limits that hurt the modding community, give us bigger maps, better diplomacy, better and serious world congress, multi-civ military pacts, better AI, and more unique units. I would suggest a global spherical map with lighting that rotates the globe!, if you're looking at daytime on side of the globe map, the other side is night time and the lighting would slowly shift from on side the of the map to the other.
I want to see river travel again and bridging across continents (basically the golden gate bridge wonder) but with a several "hex" range. I'd like to see something like colonies or trading posts, where you could put one of these on a resource or group of resources without having to build a city. (Maybe from Civ 4 or Civ 5?) Then a country would have to declare war to get this. (Maybe build a city in the region?) This MAY stop empire sprawl. I really liked the scenarios in Civ 4, 5 and 6. I'd like to see more of those.
I always thought it would be cool to have to cycle through the actual leaders of a CIV through time as the game plays on. For instance, if you are playing Rome, you get bonuses when you get good emperors like Agustus Caesar but nerfed when you have Caligula. It would be so fun with US presidents!
I won't talk about multi player experience, but for me, what would really improve the feeling of playing with the AI : Option to have different kind of AI, which you can choose. Player Type AI which will actively try to win the game, and which are your main antagonist, and RP type AI that just roleplay their civilization and their leader trait even if they somehow become sub optimale adversaries. Second, I want end game diplomacy to revolve around alliance. Not player to player alliance which barely make any sense but common ground based alliance. Imagine if the game allowed you, in the end game, to forge a pact or alliance which need to revolve around shared trait : Same form of governement, same religion, or even some historical trait your picked up depending on your game so far. And only countries that share the definiting trait of the pact your're building can join said alliance. Would be so much more enjoyable
Always loved the idea of being able to annex land from other civs or just outright purchase it from them, trading cities was only ever used as peace agreements for war and it was always for cities you had already taken. Would be nice to be able to act out some kind of Louisiana purchase type of deal for a civ that had done more settling early game to a civ with lesser strength that might not be a major threat. Also always thought it would be cool if in barbarian clans, instead of the clans becoming city states if they could become a new civ mid game.
I always wanted the Air Force to have more relevance. Letting Jet Fighters patrolling in the air for interception was quite a thing! but AI doesn't do it (sad). I wish for the bomber to link with the Jets (just like a warrior can link with a worker) and both take off at the same time, While bomber do their job, jet fighters cover them for interception. Bomber has higher autonomy for fuel than jets (true!) and can stay in the air for long bombardments, not only taking off and returning to the airfield after... anyway... dreams and dreams for civ 7. It might open room for more airplanes like Air refueling (like the convoy truck on the army, but in the air) and squadrons (2 stars) or air fleet (3 stars). Also, upgrade options for bombarding ships with torpedos for jet fighters would be sweet and reflect the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack. I also want more missions for spies such as "terrorist attacks" lol, Why not? just like sabotaging a factory, a terrorist attack can cause fear in a city, destroying districts and lowering its loyalties, but also add new options at world conferences for hunting them (it might be a mod in the end, who knows). The pandemic and the medieval scenario of the plage in Gathering Storm are amazing too, Why not it become a chemical weapon (working exactly the same) with its cloud of spreading just like the scenario? could be released by a bomber or sent from a spy :) I miss the option to make another civ go to war with another civ (without you) for gold or bargain, so you can make AI fight each other while you stay still haha, was a great trick in Civ 5
I definitely would love to see the economic victory return from Civ Rev. And I like your idea of a reserve currency; it might work best similar to religion and how you work to make your religion the world religion. Spreading your reserve currency to all civs could unlock the ability to build the World Bank wonder and win the game.
integrating OpenAI into the AI will be a huge deal it's already proven to work with dota 2, which is a real time game, sure it will be possible with civ which is turn-based
As a long running Civ player since 3, I, personally, did not like Civ 6. I tried to get into it, but I couldn't. I eventually moved to Paradox's grand strategy games. I'd love to play Civ again, in a new, updated fashion. Personally, I didn't enjoy the city building and min-maxing what hexes your city districts and buildings went in. Great in concept, but, for me, fell flat. And really I didn't enjoy the global warming mechanic. Realistic, yes, but you go through the process of meticulously building up a city to watch global warming to end it.
I really hope civ 7 takes a step closer to more realistic graphics rather than cartoonish. That's one of the reasons i did not purchase civ 6, and instead still playing civ 5.
What I liked in Civ V and would love to see it in VII were the idiologies. They could probably use some tweaking, but it added so much fun to the late game.
I really hope that they implement a more diverse leader group this time around. Civ 6 had a good selection but staple figures such as Lenin, Hirohito, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Qin She Huang...ect are missing. Civ seems to steer clear of infamous leaders in-particular and I wish they would not, they are all an important part of history, good or bad.
i fell in love with Civilization way back with Civ 2 and i still play Civ 5 on the odd occasion but i never really got into Civ 6, too different for me, for Civ 7 it must have a offline mode with modding available like the fire tuner and world builder
One of the best features of Civ II was the ability to put caravans on ships, and send them to their destination. Especially food. You could send that to a starving ally, or one of your own cities.
For economy I would like to see military funding and the more you fund the military the less you have for other things but the stronger your troops are. Make it come online after the rennisance
Would love to see better geography, spherical map not so much. Would be cool if they could produce a basic climate model that would then help generate the terrain, biome's and landscape. Even some basic climate zones like Mediterranean, semi arid (tundra, steppe, desert), Boreal forest, humid sub-tropical, etc. Plate tectonics might be asking too much but maybe more rational placement of volcano's rather than just sprinkled everywhere. This would make resource generation more interesting and could build upon the religious foundation system that civ 6 started which could then flesh out into civic's, culture, etc. This is probably a more personal thing as I like city builders, but would be interesting to see a zoom in city building model where you could found a city and then zoom in on a hex that is further subdivided. You would then use these subdivisiosn to build out your housing, districts, buildings, etc. Over time, you could expand into adjacent hex's which would then subdivide, etc. This could be used in battle's as well.
Civ VII needs to get rid of the extra-fiddly micromanagement. Almost all of the extra-fiddly micromanagement comes from using units. Of course, the explore and fight game loop should remain unit based. But, for example, why does religion need to be unit based? I've played one game of Civ VI going for a religion victory, finished it up, wiped my hands, and said "nevermore". The unit spam was insane, frustrating, and sucked all of the joy out of the game. Why not make religion (as an example) non unit based? Have the religion points go into a civilization level bucket that can be used for various things. For example, 1,000 Faith points to add one strength to all infantry units. Or 500 Faith points to add one movement point to all naval units. Or 2,000 Faith points to buy the next tech item. Or use your Faith points to create a Religious territory zone, similar to the way Culture works to create City zones. That way I don't have to build 10 to 15 apostles and 5 or so gurus in a bunch of different cities, send them individually all over the map over the course of 20 or 30 turns, and micro each religious battle.
ironically thats what humankind does instead of making religion a combative thing you have different levels of religion and with each new level you can get different bonuses. granted its a bit more 2 dimensional but it gets rid of the idea of religious wars where you're just doing war but with priests
I genuinely prefer the social policy of civ5 over civ6's culture tech tree. However, I also prefer having a government system through the whole game, rather than being locked to the Ideologies that unlock only near the end. ..Oh, and I love the combat of Age of Wonders 4 and Humankind far more than anything Civ has done. Tanks and musketmen and such being ranged feels way better than melee. And to add to that: I love ranged cavalry, and I don't like how restricted its availability feels in civ6, nor how broken chariot archers are in 5. edit: Oh, and I love alternate leaders being a thing, but in my opinion, every single civ should have 3 DIFFERENT leaders - not reskins of existing ones. And, to add to that... can America have a unique unit that ISN'T a plane for this game? Like, I get why they have that in 5 and 6, and in 5 they have the minutemen too, but I'll be honest... I kinda want to see a M4A4 Sherman. In general I feel like WW2-era stuff got fairly neglected in civ6. Which, feels odd. And on top of this.. I'd actually love to see a military doctrine system, kind of like what you see with land/air/naval doctrines in Hearts of Iron 4, but moreso one that would evolve across the whole game maybe like a social policy system in itself. And I'd love for the government system of civ6 to be... reworked a bit. I don't like the card system, despite loving the existence of a solid government system, and I like having some parts of it be more.. permanent than they are in the current version of the game, in addition to a lot being flexible. And one last thing. I want Carolus Rex for Sweden. please. Sweden's military history is just one of a plethora of examples of nations/cultures that kind of don't get represented well in civ5/6, because they insist on forcing another playstyle. Yeah, you get the unique units for sweden, but the leader abilities are 100% diplomatic - you don't get a militaristic choice. Which brings me back to "every civ should have 3 different leader choices", those choices should all encourage very different playstyles, and be chosen for this purpose almost more than representing great leaders (but both are VERY important). The Civilization's ability should represent something about the culture and nation throughout all of history that is always consistent, with a unique unit and building/district/improvement to aid in representing that core through more specific significant pieces of their history, with the leaders being more focused on THEIR eras with their trait and potentially unique unit/building/district/improvement. I wouldn't say the Nobel Prize represents all of Sweden's history very well (being very focused on their more modern times), but it's a very important thing that should be represented in the game in some way, and sweden should absolutely have a more diplomatic leader alternative. America's civ ability, for example, would most likely be something leaning into/representing the constitution and the US government - which civ6 already does well in its own way, but adapted to and designed for the new systems of civ7 - while at least one of the leaders should absolutely be a more militaristic choice, but only one of them should focus on that war-heavy playstyle, despite how prevalent it has been in US history, as if all 3 are domination victory leaders then there's much less reason to pick one leader over the other, much less playstyle diversity, and America has had plenty of points in history where it wasn't a warmonger (although, that doesn't mean it wasn't militaristic - which is also part of why I feel Humankind represents the American culture poorly by marking them as "Expansionist". I would argue them as the only modern-era Militaristic culture by its definitions, as America was only really expansionistic in its earlier days - many of the wars it has fought since after the civil war (and maybe even earlier than that, I may be forgetting something) were not for expanding their borders, but rather for expanding their influence (and/or other various reasons, regardless of how ethical) - I, for example, would argue that the Korean and Vietnam wars, in addition to the wars in the middle east, all had absolutely nothing to do with what would be defined as Expansionist in Humankind. On top of that, but there have been times where America hasn't even really been fighting wars but has been apt to use their military in other ways and actively kept it strong and viewed it as very important - see Teddy Roosevelt for example). ..this turned from "one last thing" to "one big text wall". whatever LMAO
1st leader Military oriented, 2nd economy, 3rd diplomatic. I think those would fit America well. I really like economic civs, like Spain (although I'm not big on building navies).
I hope they make use of the power of modern CPUs to improve the AI systems and performance generally. Everybody has a bunch of cores (or threads) these days, so make use of them. Graphics don't matter as much to me, so I don't see the need for requiring high end GPUs, but the game should use 8 CPU threads whenever available (all modern CPUs have 8 threads, even the cheap ones).
Performance is key, not how you get it. Civ is turn based, so possible gains are much higher if you pre-calculate speculative AI turns as the player takes forever to do things, and re-calculate invalidated AI turns if the player does something the affected AI can see within their fog of war.
I really hate the world congress (have installed a mod to disable). Here I am playing along and all of a sudden the game stops and I'm presented with a screen that I have no idea of what to do with.
Yeah, it's a bit trash. Oh, because the guy who waged multiple wars against my people said so, my population now no longer enjoys having luxuries? There's quite a few braindead functions like that in the congress. Also the Diplo favour. Someone declared war against me in the bronze age and then I wipe them out, but now in 2020+ people still say my opinion matters less because of that, even if they never even met them because they didn't even knew of their existence until I dug out some artefacts from them. Really would like a Stellaris Galactic Community thing. When it forms it asks if you want to join or not. You can then also join/leave at some future point more or less at will. Anything that gets voted on in there doesn't affect you if you aren't a part of it, be it good or bad. And then you can eventually turn it into an actual Empire if you want to play that game, where all the other members get vassalized.
@@Azzaciel you’re spot on man. It’s super annoying and makes no sense. I wish I could disable the whole thing. The Stellaris version sounds much more realistic and better
I don't really care about "better playing AI" I want AI that behaves more like a human leading a civilization/nation would. There is nothing more ridiculous than you coming to the rescue of a relatively friendly nation, only for that leader to denounce you moments after you defeated their enemy for them; or a leader refusing me joining an ongoing more when they are completely outmatched by the invading enemy, or it demanding ridiculously high prices in a deal from you, while they barely give anything back, and then rejecting neatly fair deals from you. (Indeed the leader doing that does that should give you grievances against him/her.) Rebelling cities, especially if there is more than one of them, shouldn't simply fold into another civilization if that civilization will have them, they should form a new civilization, like that happened several times in human history. A neat easy unit list for the city; just one button that gives you a list of all units that were trained/bought by that city. Having a whole bunch of cities especially if that includes conquered ones, makes it very difficult to figure out what units are already part of the city, especially units that travel far away, like traders. Bronze is an alloy between copper and tin; however in the game if both resources are even there, you never need them both to produce bronze weapons; you just have magic bronze. In combination with the ridiculous amounts of years disappear in a single turn in the early game, you zip past the age of great empires and trading nations existing upon the access of copper, tin, or the truly wealthy both. And with bronze, there is a bronze equipped army; thus it behooved the empires to keep a monopoly on it; producing a strange economic partnership while still fighting wars amongst one another; and then someone figured out how to forge iron reliably. Since iron was much more abundant; copper and tin became worthless nearly overnight; at the same time, was that the barbarians who during their monopoly could not field bronze equipped armies were the ones who figured it out; and so the ones that the empires carefully made sure were pushed aside and rather oppressed now had weapons equal and more often superior to the empires. The result was catastrophic; I want to be able to see this/plays this in the game. The game should have pretty much the same amount of time going away per turn in the beginning, as in the endgame... which reminds me... Why are Dark Ages mere economic problems? A Dark Age is a completely collapse of civilization, to the point of technology, skills, science, indeed the very thing that allows you to store that information, writing, could be lost. As always, this doesn't just happen to you, if collapse of civilization happens, all the adjacent civilizations/nations get dragged along with it. In short; make Dark Ages dark again. Negative consequences; every tech, every idea; all of it, is always solely positive. Plus this, plus that, but there is never any negative consequences while in real life there. Example; Zoroastrianism main idea is that chaos/falsehood and order/truth are fighting, and should the former win the universe will literally come to an end. With the tenant that you should question everything to find the truth, this could have lead to faith-fueled scientific revolution. In real life Darius killed a crown prince, claimed it was a doppelganger of the prince, and that the highest god of the religion told him to do it and take over. When people noticed that was quite convenient, Darius had them executed and decree that merely questioning "the truth" was to be an agent of chaos furthering the destruction of the universe; the result, completely scientific stagnation; and two centuries later Alexander the Great would wipe them off the map with army consistently about a fifth of the size of the multiple Persian armies he fought. I want to see actual tennets in religion, and not just in religion also the rest, we should see negative consequences. Being denounced now just makes you look negative to all other civilizations; even your friends, which is ridiculous. If a Civ that fundamentally opposes some or all of your ideas/values/principles denounces you; that should not make your standing with your allies less, quite the contrary, if your ideas and values are similar/the same as (some) of the other civilizations, denouncing you shouldn't lower your reputation with all your allies, more than that, it should heap grievances on the the one doing the denouncing.
While I don’t think the climate change mechanic was flawless I think the idea is actually quite good and with some more love could be a really interesting element of the game instead of an obnoxious wrench like it is now. But something I’ve wanted for a while was an inverse system. Certain actions, namely nuclear detonations, would cool the world and eventually lead to icy and tundra and snow overtaking large portions of the map.
Unique resources and buildings would be awesome. I think Earth 2024 or whenever the game debuts and make it so you play on Earth or a random maps as well. Have as many civs as possible it may bog the game down, but it'll be worth it.
Ye, I guess random maps would be available. I can't be bothered with games on a 'world map'. They're full of the same old choke points, and must have terrain.
@@davidprosser7278 different terrain would be awesome like sand pits or tar pits, tin mines or different minerals, fauna and flora too, such as berries, coconuts, cacti, or have birds flying, harvest cherries, peaches, apples, seals I've known I've gone aquatic on that on... You could go on and on and on...modders have done an excellent job on civ v and vi the developers could take hints and "copy" from them 🤪😇😆.
It would be DRASTIC change, but having ships go through rivers would be awesome. Rivers were what made the big cities and civilizations rose cause of water ways. Today Etiopia is building a huge dam, cutting water from the Nile momentarily. Egypt has threatened with military action should Etiopia go through with this. Rivers are so important for shipping goods. America's Missisippi played a huge role in their geography, allowing shipping of corn from mid west. Panama's and Suez's canals are some of if not the most important water ways on the planet.
I want to see taxes come back as an economic tool. Determine how much cash to spend on what and tie it to citizens wants. Culture ought to have a bigger affect as well. Tiles can be given to Civs with a higher culture if those tiles are far from city centers
i want an option to set a technological limit to how far you can progress for example game where you are stuck in the classical or renaissance eras for actually forever to encourage fun era based expansions and battles
The thing that makes me most frustrated in Civ 6 is that when another civ attacks one of my vassal city states there is nothing I can do about that except declare a war that gives me infamy rather than the bully civ. In previous Civ games I could at least gift powerful units. I want more options, both diplomatic and military to defend my vassals.
The warmonger stuff in civ 6 makes no sense. All the AI will denounce you for doing the same things they are doing. Imo, the only time they should denounce or declare war over "warmongering" is if the player attacks one of their allies.
Declaring war on your ally city state, gives you 50 grievances, denouncing and then declaring a war of protection gives them only 25 grievances. I still want the unit donation to come back, but you dont generate grievances for helping a city state
@Grant Todd It sucks because military conquest is the most fun way to play imo. But you can't do it without every other civ going against you. Meanwhile the others civs declare war on each other and take cities yet no one cares except the civ being attacked.
I hope civ 7 is nothing like the horrific civ 6. The best ever made was civ 5 on every level and i know the number of people more support civ 6 because alot of these people are new players to the "Civilization" series and go with 'whats new" not knowing the older versions provide a better experience and stick to their roots that made them to popular to this day. Change to much and watch your company dwindle.
@@rjmeeker89 omg ikr, what about being denounced by civs for wars that happened hundreds of turns ago when neither you nor the civ you went to war with even knew of you lol.
They need to make the late game more interesting. It seems Civ is all about having a strong early game and then just clicking next turn until victory
This is fair. The game is basically over after turn 50 like monopoly. I also think your spawn starting location has too much influence on the game.
Yeah I noticed the AI aren't consistently the same power and most just give up of fighting and military so fighting them is boring and they have like 3-6 units only, they rarely use air units too
I also notice that the science victory is always way easier than the rest
@@50Steaks68 never attempted it, what difficulty you play on?
@@chronoIV I’m not any good at the game. Warlord
11:28 I think it would be cool if you could trade for specific tiles in peace treaties but not actually take a city. that way it might be more viable to go for smaller wars over smaller bits of land if you need like 1 specific luxury or something.
I would like to see peacy treaties like in Europa Universalis 4 with war goals and the like.
This is a great idea. My biggest concern is whether the AI would be able to handle the added complexity. This is one of the biggest problems in Civ: as the game has gotten more and more complex, the AI struggles to keep up.
Uuuu i like your idea. Also i would like for ai to do the same, if you have stratgey resource they woukd wanna get it, either war or trade or diplomacy
@@roberthartmanleonard3349 - We're also in a new dawn of AI where this wouldn't actually have to be coded, it could be developed with a 'hive mind' mentality where literally millions of hours of human input could be utilized to determine the most viable actions. Essentially we're going to hit a scenario where we won't actually know if online multiplayer is actually human or not.
@@roberthartmanleonard3349 Ai is now getting very advanced. i'm sure it's good enough for it now.
I hope they bring back the ability to have your workers automatically improve tiles. It becomes so tedious in mid and late game to improve and repair every tile in a vast empire.
They got rid of that? Ridiculous. I gave up on civ 6. Don't like the district system
Sounds awful.. didn't play 6... hope 7 is not another facebook game
Or allow the option for public works as in CTP. It could be an option in starting preferences or depend on civ attributes and/or government type.
@@KendrickJ2 Well they also reworked the builder system, so you can only use each builder a limited amount of times, therefor its not really that bad, and setting it to auto would be way more detrimental than in earlier games, since each builder charge is very valuable
@@jonny-b4954 Civ 6 gets even worse, in TSL map you can see London from Aachen... The English channel isn't that small yet the map is called "huge". Wtf were they thinking man?
I always felt the domination victory should be focused on territory owned rather than capturing every capital. Capturing capitals is a fairly artificial feeling win condition, because it doesn't even require you to capture any other cities. If it's based on territory owned, not only does it feel more organic, but it also opens up new ways for people to win the victory. You can play every other victory type passively or aggressively, the only civ who can really play a passive dom victory is Eleanor, and even then it's pretty gimmicky. It'd still certainly make aggression the best course to the victory type, since you can take land owned by others, but it puts focus off of capturing other people's lands and expanding your own lands in whatever means necessary.
well, in the old times, you need to capture first the capital to show you dominate a specific race.. maybe a culture or a research to change the win condition on domination victory
pre civ5 we had conquest (eliminating civs) and domination (have 60%+ of all owned land or something) and it got kinda smooshed together into claiming capitals
partially because if you were going for either of these, you needed to eliminate/capture enemy capitals often anyway because they were the strongest, so it ends up being the same
if we do get a 'land% based domination' victory back again, what it needs to include is civ4's vassalage mechanics, so that you can vassal defeated players and have their land count as yours for it
The most fun I've had has been in Civ 4. I know that brings absolute disgust to some, but I enjoyed the auto workers. It helped me not feel so bogged down in middle/end game when my city sprawl got so large. My brother and I could sit down and go through a coop multiplayer game in a somewhat timely fashion. Things went faster. I also was much more impressed with the AI in civ 4. I liked all diplomacy and AI decisions in civ 4 much much more than civ 6. Not perfect, but something just clicked with me in civ 4.
There's an Auto-Worker/Archaeologist mod that takes care of that. And that's the #1 thing these devs need to do - take a look at the ~100 highest-use mods. Don't re-invent the wheel when someone has already given you a car.
I miss autobombard
I really miss the random actions that happene in this game, like find a goldmine or forest growth and so on
Civ 4 is my favorite. Civ 5 was ok (the iron thing irks me to no end) and as much as I wanted to like Civ 6 . . . it just didn't work out for me.
@@ecee5720 I remember using the cheat editor and spawning in Navy SEALs and aircraft carriers during the stone age XD
Good days
TOTALLY agree about difficulty - hate the cheat where everybody get's penalized or everybody gets a leg up.
I'd take it further, making the difficulty customization even more granular, like in games such as Distant Worlds 2. So you might be able to adjust difficulty settings like: AI CiV Aggression, Barbarian Aggression, World Anxiety Level, World Trust, AI economic skill, AI science skill, and AI faith focus.
The AI was too difficult on the easiest setting in civ 6. Needs to be like in civ rev so that new players get some space to breath and learn how to play without getting steamrolled.
Cheating AI (including just different starts) is something strategy games did two decades ago. At this point it's practically unacceptable to release a game with such AI, yet civ still does it. What's confusing about this is that civ is practically made for AI to work well with, it'd be really simple to make different AIs for their games
The AI is not smart enough to battle you on equal terms.
Climatic change was already in Civ 2. Once you generated enough pollution, you could get these major events where coastal tiles disappeared, grassland turned into plains, and plains turned into deserts.
You also had the ability for engineer units (upgraded workers) to change tiles into another type, which meant you could reverse the effects of global warming to a large degree with some effort. This might be an interesting addition to the next Civ version as a late game concept.
Terraforming would be very cool in lategame Civ 6 (or 7)
I think global warming existed in Civ 1 too, didn't it?
@@danyoutube7491 You're right. I found the game manual online. It says:
"Effects: Global warming causes geographic changes throughout the world. Deserts, Plains, and Grasslands on coasts may become Swamps, and coastal Forests may become Jungles. Plains, Grasslands, and Forests in the interior may become Deserts. The result is much lower food, industry, and trade for your civilization.
Your environmental advisors report immediately if global warming has occurred. The effect is always bad, but in the case of flooded coastal areas you may improve Jungles and Swamps over time.
Causes: Global warming may occur if at least nine map squares, anywhere in the world, are currently polluted. If they are left unattended for too long, environmental damage occurs.
Once an environmental disaster has occurred, the cycle starts over again. The planet has achieved equilibrium at the new higher temperatures. If pollution continues or increases once more to high levels, another bout of environmental problems may occur. This cycle may repeat endlessly if pollution is not controlled."
@@Griexxt I thought so :) I vaguely remember it happening, there was an icon that appeared in the grey menu bar I think, indicating how bad it was getting.
@@danyoutube7491 It's not easy to remember things from a game we played 30 years ago. 🙂I tried an online emulation of the original DOS game a few years ago, but it crashed on my system before I got very far.
geography changes would be awesome, i am so tired of having large blob continents and rivers that can be used for units should have some naval ships allowed in, which would make trading and war so much more interesting, maybe with a "grand bridge" district you can connect opposite sides of a strait, in my opinion just having a larger map with larger cities would make world generation much more creative and having a larger scale without the penalties of small cities would be awesome
Yes, please! Continents are almost always really poorly generated
A huge world with wide rivers and terrain height would be awesome.
yup, also the ability to annex tiles rather than entire city, bring back civ 5 puppet state feature and add cultural features like language that you culture bomb a city easier
Most importantly for me is having the option to speed up the AI turn because at the end of the game it gets realllly slow
Since different map generations exist maybe more land types such as more extreme hills and different types of rainforests
Terrain details also need upgrade, detailed terrain like Humankind do
Being able to name your nation's currency would be really cool, and to differentiate it from others in your game.
@@aigabylikhsanov6577 Probably there could be a resolution in the world Congress to vote on a global currency and it could become an international exchange currency.
being able to see the value of other currencies compared to yours would be so cool
@@aigabylikhsanov6577 Add the Australian Dollarydoo as World Currency
@@micah8516 leveraging the value of your currency for sanctions would be another way to add on to that mechanic.
@@khosrowanushirwan7591 i like this! Bring back economic victories. Win it by achieving the most valuable currency for a certain amount of turns (perhaps 20) after the IMF is established, allowing you to make your currency the global currency. Or perhaps, you can win it by having a certain amount more of your currency being held in foreign bank accounts than any other.
I would love a ridiculously large map that is practically impossible to cover with primitive units but fairly simple with modern air units. I'd LIKE to see minor technological improvements, such as the transition from matchlock to flintlock providing a tiny improvement over basic muskets. I'd also LIKE to see incemenetal technological and societal inspirations from coming into contact with other civilizations' units.
Probably you could trade a tech boost for gold.
the problem with super large maps is that you're looking at significant performance issues, and it pads out the game into the forever realm. interactions between civs could take so long to even start to occur
yes! Id like maybe that the tiles are smaller when you are at an early age but get bigger when you advance. not sure how well it could be done
To be honest I kind of preferred it when a city only took up one tile, but you could have towns between them.
It just seems more realistic than Civ 6 cities which are the side of a small country, and have tiles spread out all over the place, not even necessarily connected.
But I do get how the placement of districts adds something to the game too.
The biggest civ problem as for me is loosing of the turn action impact throughout the game. The most interesting stage is the first 100 turns.
To add a contrary opinion: I think that Civilization would be better with *fewer* victory conditions. They have really gone down the rabbit hole of adding more and more victory conditions over the years, and I just don't think it's ever made the game better. In some ways, it's made it worse. The way Civ works now, you really need to have a victory condition in mind on turn one--before turn one, even, because your choice of nation is going to be primarily driven by what victory condition you plan to pursue. So instead of opening up the game to more play styles, it effectively narrows it, because in any given game you are going to be focusing on just one thing (it's possible to pivot to a different victory condition mid-game, sure, but it's highly sub-optimal--especially on higher difficulties). The original Civilization had just one victory condition: survive until the end of the game. Any game in which you did that was a "win," and then you'd get ranked against all the other surviving factions based on points. Points came from a wide variety of different things, so it was still a game that allowed you to pursue different strategies, and on top of that it was much more amenable to mid-game shifts in strategy, or even mixing and matching. I feel like Humankind tapped into the Civ I energy with its victory points system, and I hope the Civ VII team looks at that game and takes the lesson that when it comes to victory conditions, more is not necessarily better.
I agree more isn't necessary better, but at the same time being able to choose from a selection of victory conditions is highly appreciated. It's not like you have to play with all victory conditions enabled
I like the way ck3 handles it. Needing to pursue certain criteria in order to win can feel limiting after you've done them all before and you just want to play/experiment. It's more fun to "win" in my own mind, and quit the game after I've enjoyed myself. Rather than win because I rushed down a certain path to get a screen to popup before I run out of time.
Surely more victory types would mean players don't pigeon hole themselves to one victory type? I.e. force the player to play in a more balanced way?
Wholeheartedly disagree.
It's not your day job, relax.
I get what your saying but at the same time since the game doesn’t force you to play with all of the victory conditions on it does kinda moot your point. If you want to do a religious victory you just turn off everything else, maybe leave something like domination or score on just in case you want to change up your goal mid game. But I like the current system better because if I want to try for a culture victory I can turn off the others instead of going 400 turns just for the ai to win with score or diplomacy
can you imagine if Fireaxis made a chess game? The difficulty scale would work like this:
For each difficulty setting you play against a retarded pigeon, but the higher difficulty settings means the pigeon gets to spawn in extra queens every few turns.
It's been years since we've had a civ game where the AI could destroy us militarily. Civ 4 was the last time. People bitched about "doom stacks" but it's far more realistic to have an army of soldiers than to have 1 unit per tile, when the tiles are each several kilometers in size.
I would love to see more realistic looking leaders rather than the cartoons we have on civ 6. I reckon it might be an unpopular opinion, but I dislike how the leader design currently is, Wilhelmina for example.
It's not an unpopular opinion at all. Nobody likes the bootleg Pixar look, we just put up with it.
While I do like the cartoon leaders better, I can see both sides. To some the cartoons looks weird, goofy, and unrealistic, compared to say the civ 5 leaders. But others find that the realistic look of civ 5 is kind of weird, cluttered, and dark/depressing compared to the cartoon look of civ 6. It would be nice to be able to switch between the two styles in one game, but that’s probably too much to ask for
I have to agree on that one after googling her. The one in civ is modeled after her when she is old but shown as younger.
Idk I actually prefer civ 6's style l. Civ 5's more "realistic" look (it gets called that but it's not really more realistic) comes across as very bland imo. At the very least I hope they retain the animated aspect of civ 6, having movement and facial reactions to the leaders gives a whole different feel
@@samvimes9510 I love the cartoon look. Damn…
The biggest thing they could do is take their time and listen to community feedback. Let people play-test the game long before the features are set in stone. IMHO, Civ 4 was the peak of the series, and while I like SOME of the things they tried to do in both 5 and 6, they both felt like they weren't fully thought out yet. To me, they lacked the "one more turn" addictiveness, and felt more like they were trying to simplify things too much, while at the same time obfuscating how the AI was cheating.
Yes. This. You're todays star prize winner!
The problem with that is that the community isn't game designers, what one person wants is rarely what everybody wants, so the best bet is letting professionals who are educated, do the jib, since they often know better than the community what they want
Simplified so even a bot could play(if you call clicking next button playing) and tons of "choices" that make no difference.
We need civilization 4, with better graphics, on a hex grid, and with stackable units, with a max number of units per hex to avoid stack of doom
Or do what they did in the first two games - stack as much as you like but unless you are in a city or a fort a single loss to an attack would cost you the whole stack. Maybe with a stack bonus which is the other units helping the main defender which diminishes (second unit adds x, third adds a smaller number, forth maybe adds something if you have a general or special policy or something - the others try not to get in the way...).
Remember to stacks in civ III and the stack attacked one unit at a time. I use the Aztecs attack my cities with 50 units and have to wait for the city to fall or the game to cycle through all 50.
2 things for me. It would be three but he already talked about commerce victory which I would DOMINATE in that aspect because I'm economically conscious in my games.
1) There needs to be a better way to defend yourself. I will have other nations bully me and declare war on me, then complain when I take some cities and refuse to release them back. I don't think every civ should be okay with another civ taking someone else's cities, but I don't imagine EVERY civilization would care. Some would even support it if they were already enemies to each other. The fact my allies who also hated the same civ that I destroyed now hates me is ludicrous and doesn't make any strategic sense.
2) Please bring back map sharing. I really could care less about circumnavigating the world and it just feels like a chore to me. It'd make more sense to meet civs and share your maps at the time of trade with each other. I loved that in civ 3 (with my brief time playing the game) and feel it would be best to have it back.
I believe it was civ4 you could zoom out into orbit. I'd also like a more complex economic system, more complex space program with satellites,
Yes, being able to zoom out more would be cool!
Civ4 was peak civilization. Its been in decline since.
Yeah civ 4 had things for map design that the later two didn't. Seeing some of that return would be cool.
@@AdamsBrew78 Preach. I would pay more for a Civ 4 remake. Update graphics, improve AI, and maybe a few other things but thats it. Ditch the single unit tile and ditch buildings/wonders on tiles.
Beyond Earth's orbital layer added a lot of depth to city development, info gathering, landscaping, and military strategies.
While it'd be harder to make this system work in Civ 7 given the more limited technology and the fact it could only be available in the late game, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the devs take another shot at it.
Two things that would make me want to try a new CIV game:
1: Less cartoony, more serious tone, if I wanted to play fortnite, I can go play fortnite
2: More serious and in depth game design, CIV 4 is a great example, it was an absolute gem in a stack of coal, the newer CIV games seem catered toward a wider but shallower crowd, those types of customers will play these new CIV games for 200-500 hours max (being really generous here) then will lose interest and move on to other games, meanwhile the narrower but much more loyal customers, will make CIV 4 reach 2,000 peak on Steam charts TWENTY YEARS after its launch
One think i'd like to add is they need to find a way to make controlling a lot of units every turn easier. Like being able to select multiple units at once and send them to a general are on the map, kinda like an RTS game. In Civ V it gets extremely annoying having to send your 25 battleships back home one by one after a war has ended.
In retrospect I would happily trade a return to something more stack of doomish if it meant getting rid of the curse of 1-unit-per-tile.
@@somecuriosities The idea that you need to manually build and control individual units on tiles instead of having warfare be more abstract is starting to seem pretty outdated.
Yeah, they really need to Improve this.
You should be able to just turn a war over to a great general. Give him an objective, assign him units, and let him go after it.
I always had this idea that it would be cool if some naval units could travel through rivers, for example the Viking longship.
Yeah or give your land unit much master movement on rivers
There should be three different sizes of river tile. Small, medium which would allow viking ships, and ships up to the size of a Carrack to travel up them. Than large ones that ships up to the size of a modern destroyer can sail up.
I continue to come back to Civ IV, mainly because of some mods that I love, C2C and Realism Invictus, they make the game a lot more of a sandbox for me, I don't really focus to much in the victory condition, I just prefer to enjoy the experience of building up my civilization.
If I could suggest changes to Civ VII those would be my main ones, make possible for me to immerse myself like that, make governments and policies really matter, make plots be like they where in Civ IV where I could slowly take over with culture or like some mods did, make that in case of war a could claim tiles that I have occupied, then integrate that into the diplomacy like Stellaris where I go to war based on claims the I have placed over territories, tiles, regions or cities.
I know that are people who want the fast paced game and they should be able to play that way to, but for people like me who love to micromanage and imagine the story unfolding in the map should have that too.
Policies and governments should matter, population should too, they should have preferences based on their history and we should be fight for hearts and minds as well as for territory or resources.
And globe maps would be great too.
Even without mods, I think Civ IV is the apex Civ so far. Only thing that V and VI have over it is hexes. We already fantasized about globe maps when Civ V was coming out. Maybe this time...
A better world builder option would be great! I love creating my huge world maps and building expansive world empires (like the British Empire was in real life for example). Taking years (in game) and even centuries to explore the entire map.
I would love maps on the middle East, Eurasia , Indian subcontinent, the Americas and Middle Earth.
one simple hope i have is that it wouldnt look like a mobile game for children, another slightly more complex would be more meaningful diplomacy
Instead of happiness or amenities there should be a prosperity system, it's more in line with modern known needs
I hope they improve the war strategy of the Ai. I actually want a challenge, not just more units to fight. Maybe utilize some of this new Ai software that’s come out recently?
Alpha Zero can only play good at one map not random maps.
8:00 add a loaning system, as part of the economic victory, once your currency starts dominating you need a majority of civilizations to be indebted to you.
Like people, have the ai take loan risks, if they go through unforeseen circumstances and can’t pay it off can settle with lands or cities.
Would assume you’d have to create a peace treaty with the loan.
But you could bribe other countries to make war with them so they go broke, can’t pay you back, and then cede their territories.
A lot of stuff that could be implemented for economics and victories, would love to see it.
I liked how in Beyond Earth each city had its own trade route capacity instead of empire wide. I'd like to see that return.
Dear Sid/ Firaxis, my wish list would be: TRIPLE the steps on the science/ tech tree, plus TRIPLE the discoveries/ inventions/ advances on the culture tree. Make these tree's future improvements hidden, except for the player's current choices. Provide more wonders to be built and natural wonders to be discovered. Make it quicker to build spies (and allow each civ more spies, they take too long to get built and do anything worthwhile). A game play option for a lot longer early era, I love discovering the map and starting out the civilisation. A city view where you can see how your city would look with all the all the buildings, improvements and wonders (a previous Civ had this). Next, lots more scenery/ landscape options; plateaus, karst scenery, impenetrable rainforest, dangerous reefs (sinks ships), lots of variety in hills, mountains, glaciers, swamps and mangroves etc. Also, perhaps a slow, gradual change in some landscape tiles to reflect changing climate. Finally, I would love to see a detailed map choice of the UK & Ireland (with coastline Europe), or just Africa (etc.), detailed continent maps including a Pacific Ocean map with a few isolated islands. It is the richness and depth of the experience during playing that will keep us coming back for more.
So, if I had to provide a list of my most desired features for Civilization 7, it'd probably be the following:
1. As I said previously, completely overhaul the entire Barbarian/City-State system, and make it much more dynamic (in the spirit of the Barbarian Clans mode, with a large dose of Humankind & Civilization V thrown into the mix).
2. Bringing back the best aspects of the Culture Systems of Civ4 & Civ5: Brave New World (especially in terms of expanding theming bonuses for Great Works across a number of different Buildings & Wonders).
3. Implement a rudimentary migration system-both intra-civ & inter-civ.
4. Expand on the Independant Cities mechanic of Rise & Fall. Allowing us to have diplomatic relations with Independant Cities, and the potential for Independant Cities to evolve into either Minor or Major Civilizations.
5. Expand even further on the Ages system from Rise & Fall.
6. Expand and Flesh out the mechanics introduced in Monopolies, Industries & Corporations.....and tie that into a potential Economic Victory.
7. An Events system in the mold of Humankind and/or Old World.
8. Make improvements to the Religion System. Make Pagan Religions even more in-depth, give State Religion more impact on Diplomacy and Internal Politics (a la Civ4), and have the potential for proper Heresies and Schisms that could lead to the creation of Cults or even whole new Religions over which the player doesn't have initial control (some of these ideas come from Old World's most recent expansion).
Anyway, just a thought.
If there was a mod that would do all all this in civ 6, everyone would be playing it.
Maybe they'll finally wise up and get rid of that 1 unit per tile experiment they started with Civ 5. That might have sounded like a nice idea for tactical combat, but it makes moving units around just way too tedious. After all, they'll have to move to get to combat too and traffic jams are not fun. Maybe they'll copy Amplitude's model and have tactical combat phase on the main map.
Civ IV had land changes, like deserts and things come in not just sea level rise. There's a lot of great stuff from IV that was dropped that could be brought back
It would be nice to see more unique units per civ. And more modern units. It felt like they gave up in civ 6. You get the b52 jet bomber. But there isn't an upgrade to the stealth bomber like in civ 5. Plus, the aircraft carriers could have multiple upgrades like they did in real life. How about a battleship that can launch a scout plane like in ww2?
Agree
See also: get us some modern gunships, like Apaches. Seems Civ 6 helicopters stopped at the Vietnam era.
I hope they improve the styling/art direction. Maybe an art style akin to Humankind, or the diorama/tilt shift/realism of the new Ara: Untold that’s coming out next year. At minimum, I would love to see a proper city sprawl.
I've wanted an Economic Victory condition since Civ 6 launched. Someone made a 30 minute video about how an economic victory could work in Civ 6, but sadly he isn't a mod maker. Still hoping someone takes his idea and turns it into a mod.
I would love to see more customization to the difficulty settings, maybe rivers can actually be traversed in game, like in real life the vikings raided not only cosstal cities, but they would travel the river connecting the baltic sea and black sea and would raid byzantine lands in turkey because of the river connection. I also think a addition to war and TREATIES would be amazing. Like if I win a war against another civ, instead of just making peace and taking some gold for 30 turns, perhaps there could be 5 turns which are the meeting turns where everyone who participated in the war gets a say of what they get out of winning and what the losers lose from losing. Maybe that could build more tensions with civs and kind of makes war more interesting rather than just pillage tiles, conquer cities, and repeat.
I definitely think there should be different river stats. Was thinking wide, narrow, deep and shallow, so wide and deep should be traversable by all naval units but they take up a full tile.
The generation should be done so rivers start as shallow and narrow they get larger until they get to a lake or sea.
My list: 1. get rid of city pressure. I hate capturing a city only for it to flip a few turns later. 2. Realistic graphics would be awesome, I hate the cartoon style of six. 3. Spherical map... surely this is a must for seven!
Согласен
Civ is one of my favorite game series of all time. I know there's not much of a difference between the versions anymore. The biggest change for me was 3 to 4 and 4 to 5. All I want is for them to put in a chatgpt level of conversational ability to the AI. If they can do that and tie it to the mindsets and play styles associated with each leader traditionally I would be sooo happy. And if you could randomize mindsets for leaders that would be even better. Imagine the fun of a throwback to a nuke crazy ghandi if you randomize the personalities so you get a hyper aggressive ghandi and a super friendly ghengis Khan. Omg I would play thousands of house on that game.
I may be mistaken, but I believe Civ 5 DID allow you to randomize leader personalities. Maybe that wasn't incorporated into Civ 6.
@@PetePretorius I think you might be right because I vaguely remember having this option already and having fun with it because it would mess with the balance of certain AI and create new play styles
A ChatGPT style AI wouldn't run on personal computers. The real one runs on massive servers. We might have to settle for something a bit more basic.
You could do that already plus you could make civs more aggressive or less. Again personality changes
@@Pushing_Pixels Hopefully in the future we will be able to reduce the amount of space required for them to function
The one thing I think will make Civ much more interesting to play is migration between cities.
Your city can lose a citizen (which will be gained by a better city if there is one) because there are not enough jobs (you neglected to develop e.g. an industrial zone.. I mean, various buildings and districts can provide dfferent amounts of jobs), or because of other things (entertainment, culture.. you name it. Every city will have a livability index, determined by all of those things, when it gets much lower than other cities, your citizens will start migrating).
Another thing I'd like to see: cultural effects other than tourism. Just like in the real world a country can influence another culturally without having to attract tourists - e.g. through television, cinema (also that'd be a great building for the entertainment complex!), music, and whtanot.
About economic victory conditions - I have an idea - coutries can have different currencies and their exchange rates can be a factor.
p.s. another thing I'd like to see: cultural influence should affect war weariness. As in, if my citizens think highly of e.g. French culture, than it should make it harder to declare war on france, because they won't like it.
I would like to see Civ 7 give an option to play back Civ 1 rule sets and settings but in modern day graphics. This means no borders, natural disasters (preventable with certain buildings), palace screen/improvements, the number of advisors standing behind the leader indicating how strong/big the civ is, etc.
I would like to see muffled victory modes. Basically disable a victory like religious for example. It doesn’t completely go away, but if you accomplish religious victory first, it doubles your power towards all other victories that are enabled.
I think they should add the abitly to become a mercenary nation, meaning that people can buy the ability to use your units
I've been fantasizing about a mechanic like that for a long while.
Or the ability to gift military units like in lend-lease.
I wish all resources would be useful through all game. For example horses could be luxury resource in modern era. Maybe add production chains like iron + coal = steel etc.
Hot Take: Release a fully playable, good game, and just do one or two major dlcs that add depth and balace to the game and call it a day. I wasn't aware of the leader pack mini dlc. Everything about Civ 6 has disapointed me. Civ 5, while not the most popular game in the franchise, is the most enjoyable to play, followed by 4.
What will make it amazing for me is a large true start real earth map that is updated by the devs as content, civs, natural wonders etc. Like the modders do but from the start of the game being released and supported. This would not be hard, it just needs modder community engagement. It could also have a random start option of course.
Also, no bugs/crashes.
Mh... I played all Civ games, including Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth. My absolute favorite is Civ IV... played it to death. I never got into Civ V and VI. I acknowledge their popularity but I don't really get it. Felt "floaty", if that makes sense... not really PC games but mobile games. The scope felt micro compared to previous iterations. I loved to really mass up my forces and steam role my opponents. Also I liked how the towns you could built with your workers in IV (not cities) would grow over time and generate as much money as gold mines. Civ IV already wasn't as large (map size) as the older games. But with V and VI it really felt like board games. Usually couldn't built more than maybe 4 - 5 cities... simply didn't look like an "empire". I had the impression I was playing something like "Catan". I hope they go back to the more "epic" scope and a bit of organic growth like with the towns in IV. Maybe make mines become more experienced after a while and generate more production etc.
4 is very good, lots of great solo and multi-player hours with that version for sure. I prefer 5 myself, and never got into 6 at all. Like you say the perk cards gave a board game feel to it. Couldn't stand the cartoony aesthetic, and the fact that you had to but a district before making buildings. Anyway, hope they find a way to improve with 7, but I won't be pre-purchasing after the disappointment of 6.
Some of the most epic coop/multiplayer experiences ive had in video games came from Civ 4. One time I had to basically blaze a trail through a nation to get to my brother while he was being attacked. If I hadn't done that he would have lost for sure. It felt faster paced, not so hard on micro if you didn't want it to be. Felt like I had the strategic component, but without feeling so bogged down with each turn feeling like a chore. Dont get me wrong, there are some amazing things in civ 6, I have played it a ton. My experiences have been very different tho. Not as exciting.
Treaty Organizations would be a nice addition.
For me... Civ-5 is still the best because it has the most realistic appearance. Civ-6 has a cartoonish look, hope they fix it on Civ-7.
What I hated about Civ 5 was the game punishing you for expanding too much. I love playing wide with many cities.
I hope the theme art is more immersive and realistic than cartoonish like some expanded phone game.
Reserve currency would be really interesting and make the game a lot more strategic. Such as being able to influence the interest rates, and other economic policies that can influence what your opponents gain from trade routes, along with providing certain privileges to the player who gets to control the currency by changing interest rates etc. Which would make going for that control a lot more rewarding
Civ4 AI was pretty good. It started off as a Fan mod but was later included as part of the main game in the expansions (BTS Beyond the Sword). ie It actually had fairly good city placement (ie not 1 tile away from the coast), escorted Settlers with military units, Actually attempted other victory conditions not called the Space Race.
My most important criteria: REVERT TO CIV V GRAPHIC STYLE
I much prefer five over six I have tried to get into it but I cannot stand the graphics
why don't you just use the civ 5 skinpack mod?@@8hockeygoddess
Agreed more civ 5 style with more modern graphics. If I build an army I want to see a full tile of multiple soldiers not 3 or 4 troops the same look at a normal trooper
In some areas yes (troops) in other areas no (districts, ancient map etc)
Amen...hate the woke cartoons
Sid Meier's - Colonization...
We need a remake using a new engine that improve both things.
(Improve trading and several stages of independency are my takes around that game title)
For civilization a game I haven't touch in years I say a good taking is adding a WW1 system that force war against different continents a way to open the maps further once travel to sea is discover and foot is set on the new continent. Or just an alien invasion as end-game feature xD
In civ 4 we could steal tiles by sheer cultural pressure, even more we could flip cities
It would be interesting to have that come back
This might be to much but I would love to see border disputes and disputed border mechanics. Probably you could do this with this cultural influence mechanic you described.
You can flip cities in 6 too, but the borders changing from culture in civ 4 was very satisfying
Marathon 2.0, play every month in-game. Adventure mode. Tactical combat mode option. Create a civilization. Ai "power scaler" per ai civs. Super tech shuffle, no one has the v same tech tree. Segmented tech cards, you may gain benefits from tech research in a staggered and selective manner, but need to unlock 100% to gain benefits.
I still mostly play Civ 5 when I do play. I tried Civ 6 but I wasn't a huge fan of it. If 7 is more similar to 5 I'll be a happy guy and pick it up.
Same, the goverment card things was the only really good change imo
Cartoon graphics and the little spins the units do before and after attacking really turn me off. Its the history of man not a disney-pixar adventure
More complex terrain, navigable rivers, better infrastructure projects.
Better victory and defeat screens would be nice. I liked the older versions with the graphic that showed how each civ expanded on the map as time progressed. Maybe even a way to "rewind" and watch your game over or watch specific battles.
Yeah, I loved that as well.
What I'd like to see are:
1) Customizable units. So every time you play, your units take on different attributes.
There's speed, of course, and strength, range, movements per turn, but I'm sure there could be other things.
2) Fighting that is a little more obvious.
Civ 5 I found there wasn't much point in attacking before you got artillery. Taking a city would lose too many units.
Civ 6 the early game is great, and then when you get to artillery era, then it becomes a lot harder to take cities. Even with a civilization that is basically dead, no troops, it'll still take 50 years to take their cities.
3) Area you control is much more fluid. For example, a city goes out three hexes, but you might control land that isn't a part of a city. In the real world, this land would still be used, still be a part of your agricultural process.
Perhaps they could have food delivery from cities. The further away, the more times it takes, so that you can control your empire as an empire, rather than as individual cities.
4) Starting with an era where you don't settle. Spending time to find a good starting location, instead of finding you have a rubbish location and restarting the game over and over. I know Humankind does something like this. But there are plenty of ways of doing this to be different.
It would be awesome to have an overhaul of the military gameplay like humankind and more dynamic typography where you can really see the effects of having the high ground or have to deal with narrow caverns and cliffs. I think its the two greatest things humankind got right. Like Jumbo said rivers, hill, and cliffs where fundamental in military and society.
YES. WAR!
- They should return to Sid's philosophy of gameplay transparency: Communicate all the consequences of player's actions. Quite often in Civ 6 where you have to know the game well in order to grasp the consequences of your action, e.g. when you can gain Era Score in Rise & Fall, AI diplomacy, trade routes, city pressure. I don't like reading the civilopedia, they should do more in-game tooltips, and often Civ 6's Civilopedia is very blurry in explaining gameplay mechanics. They often teached it the lazy way of "it is the way it is, just learn by doing". I think changing this attiude would be huge, since it'd both make the game more accessible for new players as well as more engaging for intermediate players. Right now I'd say Civ 6 is played too much by "Pros" - which the player number shown in the video that never reached the peak from release seems to indicate.
- Less but more nuanced decisions: Primary example for how this feels bad in Civ 6 is the huge optionality that you get for a Pantheon. Often players will stick to one of their, like, 4 or 5 favorites. I'd prefer less options that are really set apart (like the free Settler/ Builder option they added later). Another example is Civics cards. They can be interesting, but often they are too small-scale of a decision to make me really care about it. I have fond memories of the civics in Civ 4 where you had 5 areas with up to different choices that made for radical gameplay differences.
- More nuanced Civilizations: This one is a common demand i guess; they made some experiments in the last couple of Civ games, I would like to see more terrain-related things that they tried in Civ 6 with the Inka (making mountains interesting was such a genious twist), the Maori, Mali or Russia. But also more radically different civs like they did in Civ 5 with Venice.
- Maybe even some mutually exclusive parts of the Tech/ Civics tree: I think it would be interesting if research was not just a race where everyone would get everything in the tree in the end but your research choices should have long-term consequences. Maybe a more strict version of what they did with Heurekas, like, you can only access this part of the tech tree if you haven't declared war to someone (or another part that you can only access if you have), with some long-term benefits you are going to miss out on (say, the "farming triangle bonus"). Or a binary choice, you can either research this or that, giving you two alternative types of buildings or improvements. This could lead to more unique-feeling games. They did a bit of that with the Gouvernment plaza buildings in Rise and Fall, but I'd like to see this as more of a core gameplay feature.
- Gold: You shouldn't be able to buy everything with Gold. It just makes every game too samey. Maybe this could be a special ability that is unlocked somewhere (again reminding me of Civ 4's "civics"): You can buy buildings for Gold if you have this tech, you are able to speed up wonders with Gold if you have a golden age/ a specific Civ power, you can buy Trade Routes if you have a certain wonder/ gouvernment type etc. For sure some things should always be buyable, maybe military units and city tiles, but even that isn't set in stone.
Wow, this became quite an essay and I don't even think it is exhaustive... Really interesting question. Thanks for doing the video!
That tech tree suggestion was interesting. I'd also like to see it that "falling behind" changes. If your civilization invents the wheel, why does the civilization next over have to start from scratch on that too? Techs should slowly spread on their own and the first to get it gain a bonus. Sure, one can still work on the tech then, but doesn't have too. It would also lead to some interesting things concerning "isolated" civs, which don't benefit from technology drift - nor do they benefit others (if they take an early lead). That'd put it more into the VictoriaII type of tech tree, where being first was the actual reward
Monopolies and Corporations mode would be a great template for economic victory. Control of a certain percentage of luxuries, and building economic infrastructure and goods. Similar to science victory, this could culminate in a race to build economic superprojects/superproducts. Using the tourism mechanic, economic pressure against other civs could grow to levels where the victory condition includes a level of economic dominance over the other civs. Would probably take a dedicated dev (maybe team, idk how the economics of game MAKING works) to properly balance, but I don't think the mechanics would be too difficult to be practical.
Few comments here.
1) Regarding main game being content coming out, it would never be free initial cost, but ongoing support over years definitely isnt bad. I would like to see them take inspiration from Stellaris. I'm loving how for years now they drop new content yearly from one team while a 2nd team works on updating existing content to be better in line with the new releases or just overhauling systems that need improvement. It is such a GREAT system id love to see Civ 7 try if they intend to commit to this long term support like that did for Civ 6.
2) I havnt really liked recent 4X games based on history. I find they all try the same thing and somehow it bores me, they try for such intense realism that i just dont want to bother micromanaging it. So for Civ 7 i really would like to see them try something unique that isnt just a reskinned humankind or any of the other latest 4X games.
3) Districts and civ 6 workers, i hate them. I play civ 5 instead of 6 specifically because i cant automate workers and i need to actually use my brain for districts when im half asleep usually during games. Since i prefer macro play over micro play i would prefer some uh, more noob friendly tweaks for the next game would be greatly appreciated.
4) maps, improved ai, economic victory, better diplomacy, and proper multiplayer support that you mentioned i loved it. More real geography would need some serious scripting cause if they go for real geography and it becomes annoying i wouldnt like it. so for example if we get tile wide rivers, id like they to give us the ability to build bridges with workers (or cities). If we get more volcanos and mountains or nature disasters i would like more things to actually interact and adapt with this. I really dont like games going for realistic maps but giving you absolutely nothing to interact with them.
5) Even in civ 6 i find barbarians kind of dull. Maybe civ 7 could implement a more interesting barb faction. My personal thoughts? allow them to have cities and armies, maybe they are scattered like small tribes bur they still have cultural borders. They would be like half way between a city state and normal AI. (speaking of which, id like better city states). I think to the aliens in civ beyond earth that massed lots of units in jungles and oceans and you had to learn to live with them or clear them out. That sort of thing would be cool. Or possibly like marauding empires in stellaris, basically raiding military factions that have closed borders and there is a chance the clans unite and turn into a great khan in the mid game. its a really fun distraction in the mid game before you get to end game chaos. Heck could be a game mode where we play as cave men up to medieval age and have to deal with lots of animals.
6) Not gonna lie id like a option for end game crisis, we talking plagues, alien invasions, zombies, ect, within the base game. similar to what civ 6 has, but only spawning in end game and causing map wide devastation.
7) If another long term game is planned then some spin off games would be appreciated. Civ in space, Civ in other worlds, Civ in time lines with magic and mythological animals/gods/ect. Just so that we have some interesting smaller games to play while the main ones are always there being updated.
Get rid of the asset limits that hurt the modding community, give us bigger maps, better diplomacy, better and serious world congress, multi-civ military pacts, better AI, and more unique units. I would suggest a global spherical map with lighting that rotates the globe!, if you're looking at daytime on side of the globe map, the other side is night time and the lighting would slowly shift from on side the of the map to the other.
I want to see river travel again and bridging across continents (basically the golden gate bridge wonder) but with a several "hex" range. I'd like to see something like colonies or trading posts, where you could put one of these on a resource or group of resources without having to build a city. (Maybe from Civ 4 or Civ 5?) Then a country would have to declare war to get this. (Maybe build a city in the region?) This MAY stop empire sprawl. I really liked the scenarios in Civ 4, 5 and 6. I'd like to see more of those.
I think that making a way to play in a certain era. Like the Roman empire, or ww2. Basically staying in an era for the entire time.
I always thought it would be cool to have to cycle through the actual leaders of a CIV through time as the game plays on. For instance, if you are playing Rome, you get bonuses when you get good emperors like Agustus Caesar but nerfed when you have Caligula. It would be so fun with US presidents!
I won't talk about multi player experience, but for me, what would really improve the feeling of playing with the AI : Option to have different kind of AI, which you can choose. Player Type AI which will actively try to win the game, and which are your main antagonist, and RP type AI that just roleplay their civilization and their leader trait even if they somehow become sub optimale adversaries. Second, I want end game diplomacy to revolve around alliance. Not player to player alliance which barely make any sense but common ground based alliance. Imagine if the game allowed you, in the end game, to forge a pact or alliance which need to revolve around shared trait : Same form of governement, same religion, or even some historical trait your picked up depending on your game so far. And only countries that share the definiting trait of the pact your're building can join said alliance. Would be so much more enjoyable
Always loved the idea of being able to annex land from other civs or just outright purchase it from them, trading cities was only ever used as peace agreements for war and it was always for cities you had already taken. Would be nice to be able to act out some kind of Louisiana purchase type of deal for a civ that had done more settling early game to a civ with lesser strength that might not be a major threat. Also always thought it would be cool if in barbarian clans, instead of the clans becoming city states if they could become a new civ mid game.
I always wanted the Air Force to have more relevance. Letting Jet Fighters patrolling in the air for interception was quite a thing! but AI doesn't do it (sad). I wish for the bomber to link with the Jets (just like a warrior can link with a worker) and both take off at the same time, While bomber do their job, jet fighters cover them for interception. Bomber has higher autonomy for fuel than jets (true!) and can stay in the air for long bombardments, not only taking off and returning to the airfield after... anyway... dreams and dreams for civ 7. It might open room for more airplanes like Air refueling (like the convoy truck on the army, but in the air) and squadrons (2 stars) or air fleet (3 stars). Also, upgrade options for bombarding ships with torpedos for jet fighters would be sweet and reflect the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack.
I also want more missions for spies such as "terrorist attacks" lol, Why not? just like sabotaging a factory, a terrorist attack can cause fear in a city, destroying districts and lowering its loyalties, but also add new options at world conferences for hunting them (it might be a mod in the end, who knows).
The pandemic and the medieval scenario of the plage in Gathering Storm are amazing too, Why not it become a chemical weapon (working exactly the same) with its cloud of spreading just like the scenario? could be released by a bomber or sent from a spy :)
I miss the option to make another civ go to war with another civ (without you) for gold or bargain, so you can make AI fight each other while you stay still haha, was a great trick in Civ 5
I definitely would love to see the economic victory return from Civ Rev. And I like your idea of a reserve currency; it might work best similar to religion and how you work to make your religion the world religion. Spreading your reserve currency to all civs could unlock the ability to build the World Bank wonder and win the game.
integrating OpenAI into the AI will be a huge deal
it's already proven to work with dota 2, which is a real time game, sure it will be possible with civ which is turn-based
As a long running Civ player since 3, I, personally, did not like Civ 6. I tried to get into it, but I couldn't. I eventually moved to Paradox's grand strategy games. I'd love to play Civ again, in a new, updated fashion. Personally, I didn't enjoy the city building and min-maxing what hexes your city districts and buildings went in. Great in concept, but, for me, fell flat. And really I didn't enjoy the global warming mechanic. Realistic, yes, but you go through the process of meticulously building up a city to watch global warming to end it.
I really hope civ 7 takes a step closer to more realistic graphics rather than cartoonish. That's one of the reasons i did not purchase civ 6, and instead still playing civ 5.
V is my favorite and peak civ to me I don’t like VI have tried to play it several times
What I liked in Civ V and would love to see it in VII were the idiologies. They could probably use some tweaking, but it added so much fun to the late game.
LOVE the idea about taking land. Hope they put something like that in Civ 7!
I really hope that they implement a more diverse leader group this time around. Civ 6 had a good selection but staple figures such as Lenin, Hirohito, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Qin She Huang...ect are missing. Civ seems to steer clear of infamous leaders in-particular and I wish they would not, they are all an important part of history, good or bad.
i fell in love with Civilization way back with Civ 2 and i still play Civ 5 on the odd occasion but i never really got into Civ 6, too different for me, for Civ 7 it must have a offline mode with modding available like the fire tuner and world builder
One of the best features of Civ II was the ability to put caravans on ships, and send them to their destination. Especially food. You could send that to a starving ally, or one of your own cities.
For economy I would like to see military funding and the more you fund the military the less you have for other things but the stronger your troops are. Make it come online after the rennisance
I just want a neolithic age. Maybe some space stuff as well at the end of the game.
Would love to see better geography, spherical map not so much. Would be cool if they could produce a basic climate model that would then help generate the terrain, biome's and landscape. Even some basic climate zones like Mediterranean, semi arid (tundra, steppe, desert), Boreal forest, humid sub-tropical, etc. Plate tectonics might be asking too much but maybe more rational placement of volcano's rather than just sprinkled everywhere. This would make resource generation more interesting and could build upon the religious foundation system that civ 6 started which could then flesh out into civic's, culture, etc.
This is probably a more personal thing as I like city builders, but would be interesting to see a zoom in city building model where you could found a city and then zoom in on a hex that is further subdivided. You would then use these subdivisiosn to build out your housing, districts, buildings, etc. Over time, you could expand into adjacent hex's which would then subdivide, etc. This could be used in battle's as well.
Civ VII needs to get rid of the extra-fiddly micromanagement. Almost all of the extra-fiddly micromanagement comes from using units. Of course, the explore and fight game loop should remain unit based. But, for example, why does religion need to be unit based?
I've played one game of Civ VI going for a religion victory, finished it up, wiped my hands, and said "nevermore". The unit spam was insane, frustrating, and sucked all of the joy out of the game. Why not make religion (as an example) non unit based? Have the religion points go into a civilization level bucket that can be used for various things. For example, 1,000 Faith points to add one strength to all infantry units. Or 500 Faith points to add one movement point to all naval units. Or 2,000 Faith points to buy the next tech item. Or use your Faith points to create a Religious territory zone, similar to the way Culture works to create City zones.
That way I don't have to build 10 to 15 apostles and 5 or so gurus in a bunch of different cities, send them individually all over the map over the course of 20 or 30 turns, and micro each religious battle.
ironically thats what humankind does instead of making religion a combative thing you have different levels of religion and with each new level you can get different bonuses. granted its a bit more 2 dimensional but it gets rid of the idea of religious wars where you're just doing war but with priests
I genuinely prefer the social policy of civ5 over civ6's culture tech tree.
However, I also prefer having a government system through the whole game, rather than being locked to the Ideologies that unlock only near the end.
..Oh, and I love the combat of Age of Wonders 4 and Humankind far more than anything Civ has done. Tanks and musketmen and such being ranged feels way better than melee. And to add to that: I love ranged cavalry, and I don't like how restricted its availability feels in civ6, nor how broken chariot archers are in 5.
edit: Oh, and I love alternate leaders being a thing, but in my opinion, every single civ should have 3 DIFFERENT leaders - not reskins of existing ones. And, to add to that... can America have a unique unit that ISN'T a plane for this game? Like, I get why they have that in 5 and 6, and in 5 they have the minutemen too, but I'll be honest... I kinda want to see a M4A4 Sherman. In general I feel like WW2-era stuff got fairly neglected in civ6. Which, feels odd.
And on top of this.. I'd actually love to see a military doctrine system, kind of like what you see with land/air/naval doctrines in Hearts of Iron 4, but moreso one that would evolve across the whole game maybe like a social policy system in itself. And I'd love for the government system of civ6 to be... reworked a bit. I don't like the card system, despite loving the existence of a solid government system, and I like having some parts of it be more.. permanent than they are in the current version of the game, in addition to a lot being flexible.
And one last thing. I want Carolus Rex for Sweden. please. Sweden's military history is just one of a plethora of examples of nations/cultures that kind of don't get represented well in civ5/6, because they insist on forcing another playstyle. Yeah, you get the unique units for sweden, but the leader abilities are 100% diplomatic - you don't get a militaristic choice. Which brings me back to "every civ should have 3 different leader choices", those choices should all encourage very different playstyles, and be chosen for this purpose almost more than representing great leaders (but both are VERY important). The Civilization's ability should represent something about the culture and nation throughout all of history that is always consistent, with a unique unit and building/district/improvement to aid in representing that core through more specific significant pieces of their history, with the leaders being more focused on THEIR eras with their trait and potentially unique unit/building/district/improvement. I wouldn't say the Nobel Prize represents all of Sweden's history very well (being very focused on their more modern times), but it's a very important thing that should be represented in the game in some way, and sweden should absolutely have a more diplomatic leader alternative. America's civ ability, for example, would most likely be something leaning into/representing the constitution and the US government - which civ6 already does well in its own way, but adapted to and designed for the new systems of civ7 - while at least one of the leaders should absolutely be a more militaristic choice, but only one of them should focus on that war-heavy playstyle, despite how prevalent it has been in US history, as if all 3 are domination victory leaders then there's much less reason to pick one leader over the other, much less playstyle diversity, and America has had plenty of points in history where it wasn't a warmonger (although, that doesn't mean it wasn't militaristic - which is also part of why I feel Humankind represents the American culture poorly by marking them as "Expansionist". I would argue them as the only modern-era Militaristic culture by its definitions, as America was only really expansionistic in its earlier days - many of the wars it has fought since after the civil war (and maybe even earlier than that, I may be forgetting something) were not for expanding their borders, but rather for expanding their influence (and/or other various reasons, regardless of how ethical) - I, for example, would argue that the Korean and Vietnam wars, in addition to the wars in the middle east, all had absolutely nothing to do with what would be defined as Expansionist in Humankind. On top of that, but there have been times where America hasn't even really been fighting wars but has been apt to use their military in other ways and actively kept it strong and viewed it as very important - see Teddy Roosevelt for example).
..this turned from "one last thing" to "one big text wall". whatever LMAO
1st leader Military oriented, 2nd economy, 3rd diplomatic. I think those would fit America well.
I really like economic civs, like Spain (although I'm not big on building navies).
I hope they make use of the power of modern CPUs to improve the AI systems and performance generally. Everybody has a bunch of cores (or threads) these days, so make use of them. Graphics don't matter as much to me, so I don't see the need for requiring high end GPUs, but the game should use 8 CPU threads whenever available (all modern CPUs have 8 threads, even the cheap ones).
Performance is key, not how you get it. Civ is turn based, so possible gains are much higher if you pre-calculate speculative AI turns as the player takes forever to do things, and re-calculate invalidated AI turns if the player does something the affected AI can see within their fog of war.
They better up their game for the AI, now that we have actual self-developing AI. Absurdly complex AI that organically grows with whatever happens
I really hate the world congress (have installed a mod to disable). Here I am playing along and all of a sudden the game stops and I'm presented with a screen that I have no idea of what to do with.
Oh man. World congress is woeful. I roll my eyes every time it appears. It’s terrible
Yeah, it's a bit trash.
Oh, because the guy who waged multiple wars against my people said so, my population now no longer enjoys having luxuries?
There's quite a few braindead functions like that in the congress.
Also the Diplo favour. Someone declared war against me in the bronze age and then I wipe them out, but now in 2020+ people still say my opinion matters less because of that, even if they never even met them because they didn't even knew of their existence until I dug out some artefacts from them.
Really would like a Stellaris Galactic Community thing. When it forms it asks if you want to join or not. You can then also join/leave at some future point more or less at will. Anything that gets voted on in there doesn't affect you if you aren't a part of it, be it good or bad. And then you can eventually turn it into an actual Empire if you want to play that game, where all the other members get vassalized.
@@Azzaciel you’re spot on man. It’s super annoying and makes no sense. I wish I could disable the whole thing. The Stellaris version sounds much more realistic and better
I don't really care about "better playing AI" I want AI that behaves more like a human leading a civilization/nation would. There is nothing more ridiculous than you coming to the rescue of a relatively friendly nation, only for that leader to denounce you moments after you defeated their enemy for them; or a leader refusing me joining an ongoing more when they are completely outmatched by the invading enemy, or it demanding ridiculously high prices in a deal from you, while they barely give anything back, and then rejecting neatly fair deals from you. (Indeed the leader doing that does that should give you grievances against him/her.)
Rebelling cities, especially if there is more than one of them, shouldn't simply fold into another civilization if that civilization will have them, they should form a new civilization, like that happened several times in human history.
A neat easy unit list for the city; just one button that gives you a list of all units that were trained/bought by that city. Having a whole bunch of cities especially if that includes conquered ones, makes it very difficult to figure out what units are already part of the city, especially units that travel far away, like traders.
Bronze is an alloy between copper and tin; however in the game if both resources are even there, you never need them both to produce bronze weapons; you just have magic bronze. In combination with the ridiculous amounts of years disappear in a single turn in the early game, you zip past the age of great empires and trading nations existing upon the access of copper, tin, or the truly wealthy both. And with bronze, there is a bronze equipped army; thus it behooved the empires to keep a monopoly on it; producing a strange economic partnership while still fighting wars amongst one another; and then someone figured out how to forge iron reliably. Since iron was much more abundant; copper and tin became worthless nearly overnight; at the same time, was that the barbarians who during their monopoly could not field bronze equipped armies were the ones who figured it out; and so the ones that the empires carefully made sure were pushed aside and rather oppressed now had weapons equal and more often superior to the empires. The result was catastrophic; I want to be able to see this/plays this in the game. The game should have pretty much the same amount of time going away per turn in the beginning, as in the endgame... which reminds me...
Why are Dark Ages mere economic problems? A Dark Age is a completely collapse of civilization, to the point of technology, skills, science, indeed the very thing that allows you to store that information, writing, could be lost. As always, this doesn't just happen to you, if collapse of civilization happens, all the adjacent civilizations/nations get dragged along with it. In short; make Dark Ages dark again.
Negative consequences; every tech, every idea; all of it, is always solely positive. Plus this, plus that, but there is never any negative consequences while in real life there. Example; Zoroastrianism main idea is that chaos/falsehood and order/truth are fighting, and should the former win the universe will literally come to an end. With the tenant that you should question everything to find the truth, this could have lead to faith-fueled scientific revolution. In real life Darius killed a crown prince, claimed it was a doppelganger of the prince, and that the highest god of the religion told him to do it and take over. When people noticed that was quite convenient, Darius had them executed and decree that merely questioning "the truth" was to be an agent of chaos furthering the destruction of the universe; the result, completely scientific stagnation; and two centuries later Alexander the Great would wipe them off the map with army consistently about a fifth of the size of the multiple Persian armies he fought.
I want to see actual tennets in religion, and not just in religion also the rest, we should see negative consequences.
Being denounced now just makes you look negative to all other civilizations; even your friends, which is ridiculous. If a Civ that fundamentally opposes some or all of your ideas/values/principles denounces you; that should not make your standing with your allies less, quite the contrary, if your ideas and values are similar/the same as (some) of the other civilizations, denouncing you shouldn't lower your reputation with all your allies, more than that, it should heap grievances on the the one doing the denouncing.
While I don’t think the climate change mechanic was flawless I think the idea is actually quite good and with some more love could be a really interesting element of the game instead of an obnoxious wrench like it is now. But something I’ve wanted for a while was an inverse system. Certain actions, namely nuclear detonations, would cool the world and eventually lead to icy and tundra and snow overtaking large portions of the map.
Well done Sir! I'm playing the game now on my phone
Unique resources and buildings would be awesome. I think Earth 2024 or whenever the game debuts and make it so you play on Earth or a random maps as well. Have as many civs as possible it may bog the game down, but it'll be worth it.
Ye, I guess random maps would be available. I can't be bothered with games on a 'world map'. They're full of the same old choke points, and must have terrain.
@@davidprosser7278 different terrain would be awesome like sand pits or tar pits, tin mines or different minerals, fauna and flora too, such as berries, coconuts, cacti, or have birds flying, harvest cherries, peaches, apples, seals I've known I've gone aquatic on that on... You could go on and on and on...modders have done an excellent job on civ v and vi the developers could take hints and "copy" from them 🤪😇😆.
It would be DRASTIC change, but having ships go through rivers would be awesome. Rivers were what made the big cities and civilizations rose cause of water ways. Today Etiopia is building a huge dam, cutting water from the Nile momentarily. Egypt has threatened with military action should Etiopia go through with this. Rivers are so important for shipping goods. America's Missisippi played a huge role in their geography, allowing shipping of corn from mid west. Panama's and Suez's canals are some of if not the most important water ways on the planet.
Hoover dam wonder. Viking raiding on the rivers. River trading hubs. Locks and canals. Monitor versus the Merrimac. The list is endless.
I'm really hoping we get Hannibal Barca as a leader in Civ 7
Ways to make cities more visually customizable, after a while all my cities end up looking and feeling the same aside from a world wonder or two.
I want to see taxes come back as an economic tool. Determine how much cash to spend on what and tie it to citizens wants.
Culture ought to have a bigger affect as well. Tiles can be given to Civs with a higher culture if those tiles are far from city centers
i want an option to set a technological limit to how far you can progress for example game where you are stuck in the classical or renaissance eras for actually forever to encourage fun era based expansions and battles
I commented basically the same thing. As soon as I get to Modern Era I pretty much lose all interest
More diverse weapons, biological, chemical etc.
More radical leaders
More war tactics and ability to create pmc’s