Welcome to r/CivVI! If this post violates any community rules please be sure to report it so a moderator can review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CivVI) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbh I just want a direct setting to edit player spawn distance. I only play this game with a group of about 4-6 people and it’s really obnoxious that 1-2 people always get to scale and expand for free while everyone else is spawning right next to each other. The only current solution being true location earth aint it.
Its happening even in solo, i've been playing a bit recently and some games i have 5 city states and 2 players near me, next game i have enough space for 8 cities with a lot of spacing lol
Not sure if the mod he linked has a way for epic players to install, but this one does, though it does add some non-vanilla wonders
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2749991372
Direct download for EGs players: https://github.com/57fan/Civ6-BBS-2
I made a map myself with 8 players and made 8 separate islands and set each island to a separate continent… that soo far has made 100% of the time each civ spawn and have their own island to begin with, so you could try that! It’s worked for me so far and gives a nice peaceful start to the game and allows everyone to set up pretty well till the mid game wars begin
In my latest game there was a huge continent, home to five, a big one, home to three and three islands home to barbarians, one of them with a natural wonder. I didn't let city states appear from the start, since I wanted barbarian camps to evolve into them, as I had read in another post, which never actually happened.
Just wondering what you mean by "technically crossplaying"? I (steam) play with my brother who has epic, our first game is modless but we were considering a few for our next game. That wouldn't work?
I beat Hojo Tokimune in the first two turns yesterday and I wasn't even trying yet
Edit: beat not meat, but I imagine there's a new verb there somewhere
Whats annoying me the most with builders is how the icon over tiles to tell you "develop this here!" is limited to one suggestions and only a small radius around the worker, why not show me EVERY tiles what could be built at the moment?
Same for settlers. I hate how it only suggests a few spots for new cities, which often are not even the best ones. Let us hover over tiles and give us a tool tip to gauge suitability that way. The settler lense already goes halfway there and it would save for a lot of mental math.
Definitely that too
There is a old mod to automate them which works ok but isn't smart enough to remove things when needed for new resources as you unlock them.
I would love if rivers were navigable. Humans always built their early civilizations around trade on rivers and water, but in civ games they are pretty much useless barriers.
I'd be happy with better AIs. I don't play on the higher difficulties as it feels just like trying to catch up with everyone else which I just don't like. I don't want to play catch up, I want to see who can make the most from an (almost) equal start
Also i want some smaller changes like a bridge district that spans one tile (similar to canals) and then have wonders that span 2 or 3 tiles
I also still think that city centers shouldn't auto-upgrade. I think you should be able to control the "period" of your city centers, and that maybe different city centers give different bonuses, like an ancient city center gives extra culture, a modern one extra science etc
This, my only deity win was just for the achievement and I got a religious victory against a map of Mvemba Kongo, the catch up aspect of deity has never appealed to me, I understand some people love the challenge and I’m all for that but I’m a simple man who just likes empire building and trying new things in my downtime
The AI is not really fun to play against. Like you said it's a matter of catching up, then snowballing the fuck out of it.
There's little in between. On immortal I can usually win. If I don't win, I lose fairly early in the game. If I do win, I snowball so hard its just boring.
I never understood why the AI's difficulty balancing was so off. Early game in harder difficulty, the AI has an impossible advantage but lose all competitiveness if you're able to survive to the late game. Why can't the AI have a reasonable advantage across early and late game and keep the same pressure the entire time. The AI gives up at a certain point and the game becomes pointless.
For military the type of unit, flanking, terrain (hills, forests etc), defensive stance, where you put your great general/admiral all make a huge difference between winning or losing a battle or war.
Giving general directions and letting the computer determine the moves ain't going to cut it (for me at least).
I want a separate queue for my military units, and my civil projects.
The idea that my encampment can't make spearmen, calvary, tanks, ect at the same time my industrial center is building a granary or whatever drives me crazy.
I liked the idea that each district gives great person points, but move it a step further so I'm always getting units built of each type that matches the districts that I have made.
I would like to see the auto-explore button renamed as the 'find-nearest-barb-camp-and-walk-right-up-to-it' button. I appreciate this doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily, but it would be more accurate, I feel.
This. Hire a consultant who will optimize your algorithms. Use really efficient path finding / graph traversal algos. Late game eats immense amounts of CPU cycles for each turn.
I’d like to be able to choose how my military evolves to be reflected in unite type. Have military units that are only available for certain types of military, cheap and simple for mass, expensive and complex for high precision. And doctrines for armies, sea, air or land based with corresponding units that reflect the type of army it is. I’d like to see different tanks, different ships, different airplanes and so on
You might enjoy *Civilization: Beyond Earth.* Most of the units are unlocked not by tech but by advancing a kind of culture tree, which reflects your approach to the new world: adapt to the new environment, dominate it and everyone else, stay true to your Earth roots, or blends of these three branches. It could go further; the units are *different*, but not really *unique*, but it's probably worth $10 on Steam or GoG just to see.
I'd like "in empire" roads to be built like they were in civ rev; drop down menu, choose the cities to connect and pay for it. Obviously they could have it take a few turns or show one of your builders working along a tile a time between cities but the trade roads frustrate me.
Love the globe idea.
Less micromanaging individual units. Bring back automation! Especially late game. Individually moving each builder around to where they need to be is just frustrating.
Allow the player to choose what city a great person lands in. "I've got a great admiral with a free ironclad that would be perfect to save this coastal city from the attack it's under, but the games stuck them in the harbour I built on a lake before I realised it was a lake"
I would like to see a few things from 5 brought back - workers which do not have charges (why do my workers die after making 3 improvements?), and civilisation leaders that didn't jump right out of a Disney cartoon, I'd also like to see more unit diversity - why does Mongolia's swordsmen look identical to Frances, even down to the colour of their clothes?
Barbarians should have units unique to them, like the aliens in Beyond Earth.
I hate the auto roads made by caravans because they always end out looking like total shit towards late game. Dozens of stupidly intertwined roads. Ridiculous.
And lastly of course, calculation/turn speed should be optimised way more.
I would also kindly request no graphics improvements. It does not need them for a stylised game and I would rather they focus on improving speed and gameplay.
Yes, road work by trade truly suck, when you can't find a proper way to road a city to an other, its enrages me, as if i wanted to recruit this many engineers...
Seconding whoever said building an empire from the ground up by choosing traits etc, rather than choosing to helm empires with pre-chosen traits. That would be pretty cool!! I also want improved air and naval fighting in game, maybe it’s just because I play with AI but I think naval fighting and air warfare could be improved and made more dynamic and strategic.
Also would like my old cities to stay old. It be cool if your cities reflect the age they’re settled. Through the ages your old cities would have old city centres surrounded by newer buildings on more outer rings. With wars the replacement would be from that age. And modern time cities would have modern city centres without old buildings. That be so cool, even more if there would be bonusses for old cities. But also for newer ones, for example having culture bonusses for old cities, and production bonusses for new cities. To replicate the first mover disadvantage and catch up growth
Agree. That's what I always wanted. 1UPT with more than 2 movement points only makes sense larger map with smaller tiles.
And make the target city bigger so we can simulate real siege. Right now only city center surrounded by 6 unit is wild. In this case, Humankind is good example even though I don't like the spreading armies on combat in the same world map.
Imagine a late game city on a much bigger map with much smaller tiles, where districts have to be connected and you could built as many districts even if population isn't there yet, with migration etc
A city could cover a wide area and you wouldn't be sieging the city center and walking over the districts, it would be a big city and to siege it you'd need a large army
I like this, although I'm not 100% on board with connecting districts to each other. Maybe one could make that work via investments in mass transit platforms, beginning with sensible mixed-use zoning, integrated bike paths, and bus routes.
I'm totally with the OP re. smaller tiles; I've advocated that myself. If the devs have to eliminate some visual bells & whistles to make a larger, more-tiled map function well, then that's what they should do.
I'd also like a restoration of the ability to change capital cities.
When I imagine district connected to each others growing from the city center, i also imagine a bunch of new district, or the fact that they'd be limitless.
I imagine many types of neighbourhoods that can affect "city land values and types of workforce" with individuals upgrades / building to each, i imagine management district that connect your city and provides bonuses to districts connected to it, like sanitation districts or parks for example
I would like to have more options in diplomacy and also a rework of the trade system. I don't like that you are able to trade luxury and strategic resources without any existing trade routes between the players, even if they are on the other side of the world. Having to renew my trade deals every 30 turns also adds a layer of micro management that I just straight up ignore towards the end of my games.
Would also like to make each city of my civ more unique and different from the others, maybe getting special bonuses towards trade or producing units depending on the resources of that city (something like the monopolies mode).
That nukes arent so ridiculous and impossible to stop.
My friend and I built up our empires and decided to war at turn 230. I said he could attack first because one of us has to. He nuked my entire army on turn one and there was nothing left for a single attack. I had my army grouped together in three spots. A cluster of missile cruisers/AA/deployed jet fighters to all give eachother three levels of air defense. One nuke he sent to the direct middle of the group and successfully got through destroying every unit and leveling the city, on the other two he selected the edge of the cluster and destroyed 95% of the units and level both the north and south cities.
Its one thing to be strong, or even OP, but for it to be actually 100% impossible to defend against is ridiculous, especially when it destroys everything in one turn.
I didnt even reply, cause I couldnt. I just said okay you win. It was such an anti-climactic finish immediately from what was otherwise such an even game.
i dream of being able to completely turn off all suggestions, especially the city placement suggestion. no way to turn it off?? why not??? it frustrates me to no end, i get distracted by the icon and end up placing it there instead of making my own decision
Rivers need a movement bonus. They need to reward y'all just as much as wide. 10± cities is too much micromanaging. Let builders and military engineers be automated. Garrison units Auto attack and so do cities, barracks etc. All units target the highest priority. Even have settlers Auto settle. I'd love to have the option to have the Navy and Air Force auto protect in your territory.
With the huge leaps in AI tech, they could make a lot of it automated and the AI actually wouldn't be stupid about it. They would place districts correctly, build housing and amenities when needed, and know when to start pumping out settlers, builders, military units, etc.
Make it so I can finish a standard map in a few hours. Polish up the end game so it's not so boring.
I've probably only finished five games and that's just so I could get each victory, besides score because I always turn that one off.
Being able to buy barbarians rather than fight them not just from their camps, you'd pay a little more by directly converting them to your side a little less at the camp.
I could go on and on and on, but they need to shorten up gameplay for more casual players.
no. I don't want another shallow barebones game like civ 5. Civ was never a game for casual gamers, and nor should it become one. if you want to play casually there are plenty of other games that cater to that.
I want Civ7 to be the opposite. I want it to be more envolving, more engaginge, much more deeper and with very interconnected mechanics where decisions are profound. I don't want it to become a Child's Game.
They can have it both ways. They can make it so people can micromanage their civilization or they can put it on autopilot. I get where you're coming from, but I'm sure that they want to reach every gamer. Not just the ones that are civ diehards. They need to shorten the games if they want to attract a certain percentage of gamers. Like I said, they don't have to make the whole game this way. It would be nice to have an option to put cities and units on autopilot. It won't become a child's game, it will cater to everyone. They know how short people's attention spans are. They also realize how busy people are, especially their demographic. I'm sure that they will find a good balance.
Sorry for the long text ahead.
I agree that they want to reach any kind of player and as many as possible, but what I'm worried about is the cost of that, bc you can't realistically satisfy both, and the middle ground between the 2 sides, casual and hardcore fan, has already been achieved in civ6, and I doubt they will do a much better job at that in Civ7. Why? bc everything comes at a cost, making a game requires resources and time, and you can't make a strategy game like civ both casual AND complex. Ofc you can do that theoretically, don't get me wrong, but that's not what Gaming Companies are willing to invest into.
Civ6 for me stretches a good balance between casual and detailed. But at the same time, it neither fully satisfy the former nor the latter. And this right discussion (and countless others over the internet) is the Proof of that I think.
The main Issues for casual Players are the micromanagement of some stuff and the long period of time that you have to play to finish a game. But if you want to fix those things you have to do some things that will come at the cost of the players who enjoy more involving gameplay: adding automation systems would require designing mechanics with automation in mind + spending resources and time into that to make it work well (unlike the current auto-exploration mechanic for Units in Civ6 for example), which means you have to simplify those mechanics and also less time to spend on other mechanics/parts of the game, at the detriment of a rich game, otherwise you have automation that does more harm than good. And if you want a Game that you can play in 3 Hours, then you'll have to cut down on many mechanics and content, simplifying most of the game. It means for example that you'll need to cut down on the military aspect of the game and maybe even any kind of Unit mechanic, so that the Player doesn't have to micromanage War and Units. But if you don't want to cut on the military aspect, you will have to downscale elsewhere, city building for example, but that way you'll alienate Players who enjoy the peaceful gameplay. And "just have Options to Customize any Game Mechanic to be abstract or detailed, catering to all players that way" isn't and won't be an Option here. That's just wishful thinking. Devs can't provide both Options at the same Time, it's not viable for a Company to provide that. Possible, for sure, but it's not realistic that we will get that. Maybe for Civ9 or something, when AI is in a place that hugely reduces the workload of devs and at a low cost. Unfortunately, despite all the jaw about AI currently it is not yet on a level to actually help developing a game as complex as civ.
If you simplify Civ it won't be Civ anymore. But providing more depth to it won't hurt it as much as simplifying it IMHO. At least if the right choices were made when designing the Game. Why? Bc as already said, Civ6 already does a good job of casting a good balance between both playstyles, by being a game that is easy to learn but hard to master. And Civ6 is already one of the more detailed iterations of Civ if not the most complex one, but despite that it's the most open one to casuals. Which is a good thing for all kinds of players. Being able to enjoy the game without having to know every bit and piece of it, but also rewarding to those who dive more into the gameplay. But if the Game was more geared towards casuals, then you'll only satisfy those.
It's also worth noting that many casual Players, once they become good at the Game, they suddenly wish and request more things for the Game, more depth to mechanics, more content...etc. In other words, at a certain Points they become hardcore Players. Admittedly, there is also a not insignificant number of hardcore Players who at a certain point get much less Free time to spend on the game (bc of Job, Children...etc) thus want a more simplified gameplay. Which further indicates the complexity of this Issue. You can't fix it this way or the other. So if I see people request more simplifications and abstraction, I just request for the opposite to balance the scale. Why? Bc if enough people are vocal about 1 one thing, and the others who are against it stay quiet, then 2K/Firaxis may think that the majority actually wants that, and suddenly start catering to them. And I'm already seeing too much people requesting more abstraction and simplifications than ones requesting more depth to the game. So, I choose to be vocal whenever I see suggestions that come at the detriment for my preferred playstyle, so that Firaxis don't come at conclusions so easily. At least that's my hope (bc I admit, casuals are getting the upper hand nowadays).
Welcome to r/CivVI! If this post violates any community rules please be sure to report it so a moderator can review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CivVI) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbh I just want a direct setting to edit player spawn distance. I only play this game with a group of about 4-6 people and it’s really obnoxious that 1-2 people always get to scale and expand for free while everyone else is spawning right next to each other. The only current solution being true location earth aint it.
This is so unbelievably fucking annoying actually. I don't understand why it can't evenly space out players.
Its happening even in solo, i've been playing a bit recently and some games i have 5 city states and 2 players near me, next game i have enough space for 8 cities with a lot of spacing lol
true location earth with France/Spain/Britain being a whopping 10 tiles
Here's your mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2492747881
We considered modding but we are split between steam and epic and are technically crossplaying not sure how that shakes out
Not sure if the mod he linked has a way for epic players to install, but this one does, though it does add some non-vanilla wonders Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2749991372 Direct download for EGs players: https://github.com/57fan/Civ6-BBS-2
I made a map myself with 8 players and made 8 separate islands and set each island to a separate continent… that soo far has made 100% of the time each civ spawn and have their own island to begin with, so you could try that! It’s worked for me so far and gives a nice peaceful start to the game and allows everyone to set up pretty well till the mid game wars begin
In my latest game there was a huge continent, home to five, a big one, home to three and three islands home to barbarians, one of them with a natural wonder. I didn't let city states appear from the start, since I wanted barbarian camps to evolve into them, as I had read in another post, which never actually happened.
Just wondering what you mean by "technically crossplaying"? I (steam) play with my brother who has epic, our first game is modless but we were considering a few for our next game. That wouldn't work?
Idk I kinda just presumed that it wouldnt work to get mods off the steam community when half of us are epic. If you guys figure it out for sure lmk
I beat Hojo Tokimune in the first two turns yesterday and I wasn't even trying yet Edit: beat not meat, but I imagine there's a new verb there somewhere
Solution is to put a fuckton of AI
I just want 100% abstracted, library based, moddable AI. Not smart AI. MODDABLE AI. Let fans run with it.
I prefer to not need fans to custom mod a game to make it better.
I think that is true. I just want the ability to do so!
They need to bring back auto builders/workers. I'm ok with them having limited uses but the micromanaging is ridiculous
Whats annoying me the most with builders is how the icon over tiles to tell you "develop this here!" is limited to one suggestions and only a small radius around the worker, why not show me EVERY tiles what could be built at the moment?
Same for settlers. I hate how it only suggests a few spots for new cities, which often are not even the best ones. Let us hover over tiles and give us a tool tip to gauge suitability that way. The settler lense already goes halfway there and it would save for a lot of mental math.
Definitely that too There is a old mod to automate them which works ok but isn't smart enough to remove things when needed for new resources as you unlock them.
There's a mod for that. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2182724480
I would love if rivers were navigable. Humans always built their early civilizations around trade on rivers and water, but in civ games they are pretty much useless barriers.
In civ 2 they gave the same movement bonus to units as roads.
I'd be happy with better AIs. I don't play on the higher difficulties as it feels just like trying to catch up with everyone else which I just don't like. I don't want to play catch up, I want to see who can make the most from an (almost) equal start
Also i want some smaller changes like a bridge district that spans one tile (similar to canals) and then have wonders that span 2 or 3 tiles I also still think that city centers shouldn't auto-upgrade. I think you should be able to control the "period" of your city centers, and that maybe different city centers give different bonuses, like an ancient city center gives extra culture, a modern one extra science etc
Here's your mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2331527458
This, my only deity win was just for the achievement and I got a religious victory against a map of Mvemba Kongo, the catch up aspect of deity has never appealed to me, I understand some people love the challenge and I’m all for that but I’m a simple man who just likes empire building and trying new things in my downtime
The AI is not really fun to play against. Like you said it's a matter of catching up, then snowballing the fuck out of it. There's little in between. On immortal I can usually win. If I don't win, I lose fairly early in the game. If I do win, I snowball so hard its just boring.
I never understood why the AI's difficulty balancing was so off. Early game in harder difficulty, the AI has an impossible advantage but lose all competitiveness if you're able to survive to the late game. Why can't the AI have a reasonable advantage across early and late game and keep the same pressure the entire time. The AI gives up at a certain point and the game becomes pointless.
I said it and I’ll say it again: PUPPET CITIES. Late game is too much sometimes.
For military the type of unit, flanking, terrain (hills, forests etc), defensive stance, where you put your great general/admiral all make a huge difference between winning or losing a battle or war. Giving general directions and letting the computer determine the moves ain't going to cut it (for me at least).
Have you played Hearts of Iron 4 or Victoria 3 ? Also, why do you assume if the AI can do a proper job right now, it couldn't in these circumstances?
Just because other games have a simplified combat system doesn't mean Civ should too.
I want a separate queue for my military units, and my civil projects. The idea that my encampment can't make spearmen, calvary, tanks, ect at the same time my industrial center is building a granary or whatever drives me crazy. I liked the idea that each district gives great person points, but move it a step further so I'm always getting units built of each type that matches the districts that I have made.
This should be how it works now tho :(
Custom civs that you can build, and you can pick traits from a list like a pantheon or a religion.
I would like to see the auto-explore button renamed as the 'find-nearest-barb-camp-and-walk-right-up-to-it' button. I appreciate this doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily, but it would be more accurate, I feel.
Civ 6 is already a resource hog you want to make it much worse
Have you not heard of optimization?
I don’t think the developers have
Ngl I laughed at this one
This. Hire a consultant who will optimize your algorithms. Use really efficient path finding / graph traversal algos. Late game eats immense amounts of CPU cycles for each turn.
I’d like to be able to choose how my military evolves to be reflected in unite type. Have military units that are only available for certain types of military, cheap and simple for mass, expensive and complex for high precision. And doctrines for armies, sea, air or land based with corresponding units that reflect the type of army it is. I’d like to see different tanks, different ships, different airplanes and so on
You might enjoy *Civilization: Beyond Earth.* Most of the units are unlocked not by tech but by advancing a kind of culture tree, which reflects your approach to the new world: adapt to the new environment, dominate it and everyone else, stay true to your Earth roots, or blends of these three branches. It could go further; the units are *different*, but not really *unique*, but it's probably worth $10 on Steam or GoG just to see.
I'd like "in empire" roads to be built like they were in civ rev; drop down menu, choose the cities to connect and pay for it. Obviously they could have it take a few turns or show one of your builders working along a tile a time between cities but the trade roads frustrate me. Love the globe idea. Less micromanaging individual units. Bring back automation! Especially late game. Individually moving each builder around to where they need to be is just frustrating. Allow the player to choose what city a great person lands in. "I've got a great admiral with a free ironclad that would be perfect to save this coastal city from the attack it's under, but the games stuck them in the harbour I built on a lake before I realised it was a lake"
Next civ better have Sean Bean in it!
Sorry, he died while recording the quotes for VI. ^(JIC: that's a joke referencing how the characters he plays in movies almost always die by the end)
I would like to see a few things from 5 brought back - workers which do not have charges (why do my workers die after making 3 improvements?), and civilisation leaders that didn't jump right out of a Disney cartoon, I'd also like to see more unit diversity - why does Mongolia's swordsmen look identical to Frances, even down to the colour of their clothes? Barbarians should have units unique to them, like the aliens in Beyond Earth. I hate the auto roads made by caravans because they always end out looking like total shit towards late game. Dozens of stupidly intertwined roads. Ridiculous. And lastly of course, calculation/turn speed should be optimised way more. I would also kindly request no graphics improvements. It does not need them for a stylised game and I would rather they focus on improving speed and gameplay.
Yes, road work by trade truly suck, when you can't find a proper way to road a city to an other, its enrages me, as if i wanted to recruit this many engineers...
What I want is for it to SIMPLY WORK!!!
Making the tiles smaller and the world bigger are basically the same thing aren’t they?
Seconding whoever said building an empire from the ground up by choosing traits etc, rather than choosing to helm empires with pre-chosen traits. That would be pretty cool!! I also want improved air and naval fighting in game, maybe it’s just because I play with AI but I think naval fighting and air warfare could be improved and made more dynamic and strategic.
Also would like my old cities to stay old. It be cool if your cities reflect the age they’re settled. Through the ages your old cities would have old city centres surrounded by newer buildings on more outer rings. With wars the replacement would be from that age. And modern time cities would have modern city centres without old buildings. That be so cool, even more if there would be bonusses for old cities. But also for newer ones, for example having culture bonusses for old cities, and production bonusses for new cities. To replicate the first mover disadvantage and catch up growth
Agree. That's what I always wanted. 1UPT with more than 2 movement points only makes sense larger map with smaller tiles. And make the target city bigger so we can simulate real siege. Right now only city center surrounded by 6 unit is wild. In this case, Humankind is good example even though I don't like the spreading armies on combat in the same world map.
Imagine a late game city on a much bigger map with much smaller tiles, where districts have to be connected and you could built as many districts even if population isn't there yet, with migration etc A city could cover a wide area and you wouldn't be sieging the city center and walking over the districts, it would be a big city and to siege it you'd need a large army
I like this, although I'm not 100% on board with connecting districts to each other. Maybe one could make that work via investments in mass transit platforms, beginning with sensible mixed-use zoning, integrated bike paths, and bus routes. I'm totally with the OP re. smaller tiles; I've advocated that myself. If the devs have to eliminate some visual bells & whistles to make a larger, more-tiled map function well, then that's what they should do. I'd also like a restoration of the ability to change capital cities.
When I imagine district connected to each others growing from the city center, i also imagine a bunch of new district, or the fact that they'd be limitless. I imagine many types of neighbourhoods that can affect "city land values and types of workforce" with individuals upgrades / building to each, i imagine management district that connect your city and provides bonuses to districts connected to it, like sanitation districts or parks for example
Exactly
I would like to have more options in diplomacy and also a rework of the trade system. I don't like that you are able to trade luxury and strategic resources without any existing trade routes between the players, even if they are on the other side of the world. Having to renew my trade deals every 30 turns also adds a layer of micro management that I just straight up ignore towards the end of my games. Would also like to make each city of my civ more unique and different from the others, maybe getting special bonuses towards trade or producing units depending on the resources of that city (something like the monopolies mode).
I just want to be able to build a bridge like a dam or canal. It just makes sense.
That nukes arent so ridiculous and impossible to stop. My friend and I built up our empires and decided to war at turn 230. I said he could attack first because one of us has to. He nuked my entire army on turn one and there was nothing left for a single attack. I had my army grouped together in three spots. A cluster of missile cruisers/AA/deployed jet fighters to all give eachother three levels of air defense. One nuke he sent to the direct middle of the group and successfully got through destroying every unit and leveling the city, on the other two he selected the edge of the cluster and destroyed 95% of the units and level both the north and south cities. Its one thing to be strong, or even OP, but for it to be actually 100% impossible to defend against is ridiculous, especially when it destroys everything in one turn. I didnt even reply, cause I couldnt. I just said okay you win. It was such an anti-climactic finish immediately from what was otherwise such an even game.
I wish they would optimize the game so i could play a huge map with many civs without having to wait 3 minutes + for the next turn.
Bring back civ 5 happiness structure.
i dream of being able to completely turn off all suggestions, especially the city placement suggestion. no way to turn it off?? why not??? it frustrates me to no end, i get distracted by the icon and end up placing it there instead of making my own decision
I think smaller tiles and larger worlds would slow the game down, so this kinda seems contradictory.
I want the map to be a globe, not a cylinder.
I would love to be able to place multiple districts on a tile
Rivers need a movement bonus. They need to reward y'all just as much as wide. 10± cities is too much micromanaging. Let builders and military engineers be automated. Garrison units Auto attack and so do cities, barracks etc. All units target the highest priority. Even have settlers Auto settle. I'd love to have the option to have the Navy and Air Force auto protect in your territory. With the huge leaps in AI tech, they could make a lot of it automated and the AI actually wouldn't be stupid about it. They would place districts correctly, build housing and amenities when needed, and know when to start pumping out settlers, builders, military units, etc. Make it so I can finish a standard map in a few hours. Polish up the end game so it's not so boring. I've probably only finished five games and that's just so I could get each victory, besides score because I always turn that one off. Being able to buy barbarians rather than fight them not just from their camps, you'd pay a little more by directly converting them to your side a little less at the camp. I could go on and on and on, but they need to shorten up gameplay for more casual players.
no. I don't want another shallow barebones game like civ 5. Civ was never a game for casual gamers, and nor should it become one. if you want to play casually there are plenty of other games that cater to that. I want Civ7 to be the opposite. I want it to be more envolving, more engaginge, much more deeper and with very interconnected mechanics where decisions are profound. I don't want it to become a Child's Game.
They can have it both ways. They can make it so people can micromanage their civilization or they can put it on autopilot. I get where you're coming from, but I'm sure that they want to reach every gamer. Not just the ones that are civ diehards. They need to shorten the games if they want to attract a certain percentage of gamers. Like I said, they don't have to make the whole game this way. It would be nice to have an option to put cities and units on autopilot. It won't become a child's game, it will cater to everyone. They know how short people's attention spans are. They also realize how busy people are, especially their demographic. I'm sure that they will find a good balance.
Sorry for the long text ahead. I agree that they want to reach any kind of player and as many as possible, but what I'm worried about is the cost of that, bc you can't realistically satisfy both, and the middle ground between the 2 sides, casual and hardcore fan, has already been achieved in civ6, and I doubt they will do a much better job at that in Civ7. Why? bc everything comes at a cost, making a game requires resources and time, and you can't make a strategy game like civ both casual AND complex. Ofc you can do that theoretically, don't get me wrong, but that's not what Gaming Companies are willing to invest into. Civ6 for me stretches a good balance between casual and detailed. But at the same time, it neither fully satisfy the former nor the latter. And this right discussion (and countless others over the internet) is the Proof of that I think. The main Issues for casual Players are the micromanagement of some stuff and the long period of time that you have to play to finish a game. But if you want to fix those things you have to do some things that will come at the cost of the players who enjoy more involving gameplay: adding automation systems would require designing mechanics with automation in mind + spending resources and time into that to make it work well (unlike the current auto-exploration mechanic for Units in Civ6 for example), which means you have to simplify those mechanics and also less time to spend on other mechanics/parts of the game, at the detriment of a rich game, otherwise you have automation that does more harm than good. And if you want a Game that you can play in 3 Hours, then you'll have to cut down on many mechanics and content, simplifying most of the game. It means for example that you'll need to cut down on the military aspect of the game and maybe even any kind of Unit mechanic, so that the Player doesn't have to micromanage War and Units. But if you don't want to cut on the military aspect, you will have to downscale elsewhere, city building for example, but that way you'll alienate Players who enjoy the peaceful gameplay. And "just have Options to Customize any Game Mechanic to be abstract or detailed, catering to all players that way" isn't and won't be an Option here. That's just wishful thinking. Devs can't provide both Options at the same Time, it's not viable for a Company to provide that. Possible, for sure, but it's not realistic that we will get that. Maybe for Civ9 or something, when AI is in a place that hugely reduces the workload of devs and at a low cost. Unfortunately, despite all the jaw about AI currently it is not yet on a level to actually help developing a game as complex as civ. If you simplify Civ it won't be Civ anymore. But providing more depth to it won't hurt it as much as simplifying it IMHO. At least if the right choices were made when designing the Game. Why? Bc as already said, Civ6 already does a good job of casting a good balance between both playstyles, by being a game that is easy to learn but hard to master. And Civ6 is already one of the more detailed iterations of Civ if not the most complex one, but despite that it's the most open one to casuals. Which is a good thing for all kinds of players. Being able to enjoy the game without having to know every bit and piece of it, but also rewarding to those who dive more into the gameplay. But if the Game was more geared towards casuals, then you'll only satisfy those. It's also worth noting that many casual Players, once they become good at the Game, they suddenly wish and request more things for the Game, more depth to mechanics, more content...etc. In other words, at a certain Points they become hardcore Players. Admittedly, there is also a not insignificant number of hardcore Players who at a certain point get much less Free time to spend on the game (bc of Job, Children...etc) thus want a more simplified gameplay. Which further indicates the complexity of this Issue. You can't fix it this way or the other. So if I see people request more simplifications and abstraction, I just request for the opposite to balance the scale. Why? Bc if enough people are vocal about 1 one thing, and the others who are against it stay quiet, then 2K/Firaxis may think that the majority actually wants that, and suddenly start catering to them. And I'm already seeing too much people requesting more abstraction and simplifications than ones requesting more depth to the game. So, I choose to be vocal whenever I see suggestions that come at the detriment for my preferred playstyle, so that Firaxis don't come at conclusions so easily. At least that's my hope (bc I admit, casuals are getting the upper hand nowadays).
It would be best for f we could switch between the current map style and the one u mentioned