Your Civ VI Wish List.

[Rusty Edge]

I know that what's on the drawing board is all that's going to be in the game at release time, and maybe not all of that.
But we all know that the game evolves with patches and expansions over time. Sometimes they incorporate modder's work in a patch, such as Solver's random events for IV.

So what would you like to see in VI eventually, if not upon release?

[Buster's Uncle]

I'm sure it will never happen, but the story -easily ignored if you don't like that sort of thing, but value-added for a lot of us- is what made SMACX special above all else.  I was talking about this for 6 back when Civ 5 was the Shiny New Thing.

Admittedly, I don't quite know how you do that with something as long and broad as the history of mankind being organized, but at least a lot more could be done with interludes between ages.  The historical figures used as leaders could be far more in-character -Yang has an individual personality, and he's great that way, not that I can reconcile Gandhi leading India with ever being in a war- and --- my ideas are vagueish, and the creative difficulty level is higher because of scope and having to handwave immortal 6,000 year-old leaders, but I can't believe it can't be done...

[Rusty Edge]

I was going to make a list, but I think my first post will be a single subject- Diplomacy.

I'm glad they are introducing personal agendas, both historical and random /hidden.  Great.

I liked both the civ-centric approach to differentiating civs from III, and the leader approach from IV. I wanted V to combine the two. I want both to have traits.

Trilateralism  - I wish I could negotiate with two leaders at once. I would like to be able to do a triangular trade. Strategic materials for food for luxuries- iron for wheat for bananas for example, with some gold per thrown in.. Or I'll join you in the War against Monty, but only if Shaka agrees to also.

Also, I wish peace negotiations didn't have to be one sided. We have our objectives for going to war- resources, religions, etc. Why can't we negotiate a win-win, where one side gets the strategic resource or ocean access the other  refused to share , and gives back or gets rid of the cranky religious misfits?  Everybody claims victory.

Reputation. An important consideration for the A.I. should be the human's reputation. How good is he at honoring deals and not breaking them? How good is he at defending his allies? Does he back up his threats?  Call it a credibility rating. The more credible he is, the more likely the A.I.s should be willing to negotiate. This is separate from how much they like or dislike you. For example, the historical Genghis Kahn was universally disliked, but his credibility was above question.

So in my vision of the game, you could make creative trades, such as mixtures of gold, resources,  gold per turn, and techs, as long as you had enough credibility and likability. If you exploited such deals by backstabbing somebody- well, there goes your credibility. You may have trouble getting anybody to cooperate or trade with you the rest of the game in a Civ V we hate you because you're human kind of way. They may not even talk unless you have something they need.

[Unorthodox]

I'm sure it will never happen, but the story -easily ignored if you don't like that sort of thing, but value-added for a lot of us- is what made SMACX special above all else.  I was talking about this for 6 back when Civ 5 was the Shiny New Thing.

Admittedly, I don't quite know how you do that with something as long and broad as the history of mankind being organized, but at least a lot more could be done with interludes between ages.  The historical figures used as leaders could be far more in-character -Yang has an individual personality, and he's great that way, not that I can reconcile Gandhi leading India with ever being in a war- and --- my ideas are vagueish, and the creative difficulty level is higher because of scope and having to handwave immortal 6,000 year-old leaders, but I can't believe it can't be done...

I think the personalities/agendas could go a long way towards that.  ESPECIALLY if they constrained the human player a bit.  Make your people unhappy if you run a civ outside it's predefined agendas. 

Advisors are likely a dead in the water concept at this point, but they could really be fun to implement in this sense, with civ specific advisors to push you into the specific agendas. 

[Rusty Edge]

Well, like I said, think of this as a wish list for VI and it's expansions.

The series has done some fun things with advisors in the past. I would welcome them back. Rationally, I can see that a religious nation would be happier spreading the faith than making war, and a martial nation wouldn't be much interested in culture, for example.

Like many things that are potentially controversial, the solution is to simply make it a check box option on the start-up menu.

[Buster's Uncle]

You know, I'm sure the problem they face is wanting to offend no one and rightly thinking that a non-trivial portion of the audience will come to the game with an attachment to certain factions from real life - the Americans alone, the conservative ones, would get torn all out of shape if it had Lincoln done realistically with his radicial liberalism and corresponding penalties for some play styles - likewise, the same crowd would burst veins if the US was set up to favor an imperialist bully style IF they made the connection with it might be saying something about real life that any Nicaraguan would tell you...

Yang, after all - was leader of the HIVE, not space-CHINA, not explicitly COMMUNIST (or even actually)...  Some artistically-sensible things that would make the game better are just LOOKING for trouble and ratchet up the difficulty level - (though if they were any good at marketing, that's actually free publicity that could blow a niche game into the stratosphere of sales...)

[Unorthodox]

You know, I'm problem they face is wanting to offend no one and rightly thinking that a non-trivial portion of the audience will come to the game with an attachment to certain factions from real life - the Americans alone, the conservative ones, would get torn all out of shape if it had Lincoln done realistically with his radicial liberalism and corresponding penalties for some play styles - likewise, the same crowd would burst veins if the US was set up to favor an imperialist bully style IF they made the connection with it might be saying something about real life that any Nicaraguan would tell you...

Yang, after all - was leader of the HIVE, not space-CHINA, not explicitly COMMUNIST (or even actually)...  Some artistically-sensible things that would make the game better are just LOOKING for trouble and ratchet up the difficulty level - (though if they were any good at marketing, that's actually free publicity that could blow a niche game into the stratosphere of sales...)

There would no doubt be some feelings to navigate.  But, there were those who had their nickers in a twist over the traits back in Civ IV, and I would see this as just an extension of that concept. 

[Rusty Edge]

How about an Imperialist-Environmentalist Teddy Roosevelt as an American leader for a change?


------------------------

I've had an idea for a Civ scenario since the announcement of the VI.

MYTHIC LEGENDS-

All of the leaders are semi- mythic. Gilgamesh of the Sumerians, King Arthur of England, Finn McCool of Ireland, Moses of Judeah, Hercules of the Greeks, Davey Crocket or Paul Bunyan of America, etc.  The object is a cultural victory.

You could take it a step further and have the leaders personified as Great People with unique abilities. Moses can part seas with dry land. Finn McCool can destroy a land bridge. Bunyan can clear contiguous forests in one turn. Maybe Hercules can move mountains. Gilgamesh respawns from the dead.  That sort of thing.

Uno, what mythical ability would King Arthur have?

[Buster's Uncle]

DANG - that's pretty genius, Rusty.

-I like the idea of Roosevelt I, too.

[Unorthodox]

Uno, what mythical ability would King Arthur have?

Most everyone would understand taking the 2 Excalibur traits of the sword drawing blood with every stroke, and the scabbard healing, but that is more combat than map oriented (you list map abilities for the others).  The more clandestine nature of the king is the land, the land is the king, I'm not sure how to represent.  Production bonuses around the king, diminishing if he's wounded? 

[Buster's Uncle]

Something to do with morale?  Inspirational leader with a vision, and never lost a field he took to in battle (I re-read That Wicked Day a few months ago, and of course I was think about Camelot at the beginning of the month).

[Dale]

Knights of the Round Table - map FOW slowly lifts automatically (the Knights exploring the lands).

Keeps with the map-based themes of the others.

[Rusty Edge]

Uno, what mythical ability would King Arthur have?

Most everyone would understand taking the 2 Excalibur traits of the sword drawing blood with every stroke, and the scabbard healing, but that is more combat than map oriented (you list map abilities for the others).  The more clandestine nature of the king is the land, the land is the king, I'm not sure how to represent.  Production bonuses around the king, diminishing if he's wounded?

Well, it wouldn't have to be map related. Gilgamesh is just a Great General who comes back from the dead.  The idea is just to make something interesting enough to get people reading the Civilopedia about the mythic heroes, and sort of balanced.

Moses is overpowered with his plagues, so I went with part the Red Sea. FinMcCool tricked the Scottish giant to tear up the causeway, so the reverse seemed like a fit.

I have long advocated the ability of a great engineer to build a 1 tile bridge or tunnel late game, in case Napoleon is still eager to cross the channel 200 years later.

[vonbach]

Easy modding and an AI that actually works. Future tech would be nice.

[Unorthodox]

Future tech would be nice, provided it's reasonably integrated.