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
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.
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 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
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?
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
I miss the older Civ games like 2 and 3. Back when you could go many many turns before discovering some primitive Civ and your science would be millenia ahead of theirs. It was very enjoyable to build Great Lighthouse and improve your chances of crossing ocean tiles and then be the first to settle an entirely new continent.
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.
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
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
I think that at faster game speeds units should be able to move further per turn. This is hard to balance, but as it is now the faster game speeds leave you no time for much tactical maneuvers. By the time your ancient units move over to attack one city the next age already begins.
Likewise, marathon games are so much more difficult on higher difficulties. By the time you realize you are about to get a declaration of war it's nearly impossible to make an army as a response. You simply have to have the army already there. No way you are buying multiple units in the early game. Nothing quite like sending a warrior out on turn 8 and running into an army of Nubian Archers. Watching PW buying traders and settlers before turn 15 always make me go "wait wtf.. oh, right... normal speed."
Other 4X games experimented with longer movement distances and trust me it actually ruins the game. Without some SERIOUS zone of control restructuring, having 15 movement points completely ruins game balance
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
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.
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.
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 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
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 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...
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
- 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Only two: 1. A functioning AI for once. Either simplify gameplay so that the AI can handle it or make a smart AI. 2. Remove all the bloat. Stick to what is fun and interesting and throw out trash like tourism.
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.
For starters, they need to throw a bone to the old school Civ4 community by having the game be able to scale in complexity. Civ6 was a move towards simplicity to attract new players. It was cartooney, both in graphic design and AI leader behavior. I'd love Firaxis to take a cue from Amplitude, especially with combat.
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 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
I agree, i loved it when i run across siam and i get to see the beautiful backdrop with all the trees and water! Civ 6 has such ugly leader animations!
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!
We need an ethnicity aspect to Civ. A randomized genetic/historic lineage, land certain people hold sacred, heritage and loyalty bound to history laced throughout the map. This would add interesting dynamics to all aspects: diplomacy (claims, inherent relationships, and a deeper purpose). It would add, not only slightly more complexity to the game play but more importantly it would add a story to everything we do. If anyone can make complex human ethnic/identity gamified simply it would be Sid. Just an extra juicy layer but not something too overbearing either.
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.
I'm still playing Civ IV... THAT feels like an eternity. I'm not the only one as there is a good player base still that also believes Civ V and VI were huge steps down in the franchise. Here's hoping Sid Meier takes an active role in Civ VII and brings back the glory days.
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.
Things is ill like to see in Civ7: 1. More war options : proxy war etc 2. Transportation system: make river more useful 3. Better AI 4. More interesting late game and future er: science fiction stuffs 5. More winning condition : eg. Economy victory
Rivers need to be more important especially in the early game…trade, transporting troops, etc. Fix the AI so they don’t forward settle every game, every opportunity they get. Get rid of the 2K launcher
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.
I really did not care for the cartoon look of Civ VI, which is why I still play Civ V. I would like Civ VII to look more realistic and grounded. I would actually like to see a specific civilization developing and expanding on the terrain to be a marvel to look at. One of the reasons I liked Ghost of Tsushima so much was that I got to witness a medieval Japanese civilization, see the unique architecture and flavor of the civilization. I wish Civilization could offer that and deemphasize the visual component of the statistical nature of the gameplay mechanics. I wish grasslands would actually look like organic natural grasslands, not an identically looking terrain tile that reminds of Advanced Wars. I wish the world looks more real, that with all UI elements turned off, it could look like an actual bird-eye photo of the world.
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.
The same issues, over and over: -The AI is awful at war. -Diplomacy is not that helpful. Have an ally? Watch them watch you fight a war. -The Civs lose all personality in the modern era -The game becomes a maelstrom of units in the modern era-why? -"War" is the story of human history? Can we have some peace that is enjoyable, please?
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 hated in civ 6 when a civ declared war on me only to send 1-3 units to me and then surrender. I don’t think over ever had a genuine war in civ 6. In civ 5, if a civ wanted to go to war with you, they would let you know with an army and tactics.
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.
Firaxis pulled the end game replay in Civ 6, a feature that many people liked. It showed the evolution of all the empires, cities founded, wonders being built, great people born, etc. PLEASE PUT THAT BACK IN CIV 7!!!!
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 🤪😇😆.
As a casual players i felt that Civ VI is much more complicated than CIV V, much because of the district functionality, and because of the that the for me came out not as good as Civ V, having a friend that plays a lot more than i do he says the same he likes the game but feels is very more difficult too casual players to play and understand the game
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.
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.
1. a real 3D globe 2. visually growing cities w/o scattered tile districts, AI to fill the gaps 3. size penalties to totally avoid world conquest 4. a space layer, like satellites, stations or more
I want to be able to buy or go to war over single or multiple tiles a neighboring city owns. I dont think any other new feature would be more historically accurate and necessary to add to the game than that. Either being able to steal it through war, being able to choose tiles during peace negotiations, demand that I be given it, or trading for it would be great.
It would be preety cool if the next CIV game could take inspiration from Humankind's Neolithic Era and maybe, instead of starting out with 1 Settler and 1 Warrior and settling your 1st city in the 1st turn, you would have a short era before settling your first city and allow you to explore a little for the best place to settle your first city. Maybe even a short tech tree for this starting era before you actually dive into your full Civilization game. ;-)
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
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!
I just hope civ 7 would be a hybrid between civ v and civ vi, with zoomed in districts view when you click a city, bigger maps and something that close to civ v art style.
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.
Maybe this is too much but how about a Fictitious Civilization (expansion setting or something). Imagine playing the Fire Nation (ATLA) or House Stark (Game of Thrones). I can see it now... Air Nomad: Capitals receive 3 envoys/ +1 Diplomatic favor per round if built on a mountain (and if not in war), monks (air benders) can have the spec ops ability of jumping tiles (less range), religious units can traverse mountains, receive a diplomatic point/ +1 free settler next era when one of its cities is destroyed/occupied in previous era. Water Tribe: Unlocks Cartography when fishing is discovered +1 free galley, districts built of coastline receives bonuses, land units travel between cities (Spirit Bridge) via Holy District Temples, ships can be purchase with faith. Earth Kingdom: All land units can traverse over mountains, certain district can built on mountains, receive 2 free spies (Dai Li) when espionage is discovered, every unique quarry gives a random science boost. Fire Nation: Receives a cultural bomb when Capital if built next to a volcano (& no damage to Capital during eruption), zeppelins industrial age bombers, receives a free melee unit when a city is founded. United Republic: Loyalty pressure to adjacent cities built on coast lines. Cultural bomb when a new district is built on a coast & Coastal Wonder are also cheaper to produce. Apostles can convert any enemy unit. Free Battleship when it's discovered.
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.
It needs to firstly fix the feeling of Civ 6. Civ 5 felt fun even if at times simple, Civ 6 felt clinical and managerial. The best game for Civ 7 to look to for both functionality but all while keeping it simple is Stellaris.
One thing I have always hated in Civ, is when you are half way through a long game and realize you are going to win. It's just going through the motions after that. I love when games culminate into a final push for the victory and is neck and neck right up to the end.
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.
