What CIV 7 Needs To Offer

[@moreinterference]

There's one major thing Civ 7 needs - AI that isn't crap. I simply won't buy another Civ game where the AI relies on being given a headstart at the beginning and is so terribly inept at the mid and late game, especially in regards to the way it mismanages its military and combat. I want to be outwitted by the AI from time to time, I want it to surprise me in the way a human would, I want it to properly defend itself so you can't just roll over them at will - and it has to be done within the confines of the rules of the game, not through advantages given only to the CPU players. If they can't do that they won't be getting my money.

[@GINXDocs]

This is definitely the most common wish from Civ fans - feels crazy that the AI seemed better in the older games - SMAC felt like the peak of AI opponents that played like humans imho. We circled around the topic in this video ‘cos otherwise it would have been double the length, but we might do a follow up really diving into the AI of Civ (and other 4X games) and thinking about how it can be improved for future games.

[@Dragonseer666]

Yeah you have to either make the game insanely difficult or absolutely steamroll.

[@markussmedhus9717]

@@Dragonseer666 Sounds like a skill issue. OP wants AI that is actually intelligent. That's an oxymoron. There's no such thing, let alone in a video game. Everything is an if-else statment that has to be programmed.

[@lordnecrotis5517]

@@markussmedhus9717Sounds like a condescension issue on your part. Example: If military units have been eliminated build more… except the AI doesn’t even do that. Ergo, it’s broken.

[@markussmedhus9717]

@@lordnecrotis5517 Hm, to my experience the AI does nothing but crap out units. Even when it should not be able to afford them. Because it's cheating.

[@infinite562]

Civ7 needs bigger maps, more terrain options, better AI, and to be much more mod friendly (mainly as in no asset limitations)!

[@AnimePigeon]

Civ 6 Maps are actually smaller than Civ 5 - so yeah, Civ 7 need bigger maps

[@gemilangrahmandhika7509]

Bigger maps. Like, 10x fold. Even if we going back to Civ 3 graphics 😁

[@jimpro243]

They could've spent the entire time vastly improving their AI with minimal changes to the gameplay itself and I would not be mad. Difficulty based on buffs vs. de-buffs is not very exciting.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

- I would like to improve the pace of the game. Antiquity and the Middle Ages pass by too quickly, but these were eras lasting thousands of years. Before I have time to enjoy the Roman legions, they are already obsolete. By the time I train the knights, there is already gunpowder. - Rivers should play a greater role, there should be navigable rivers (that are not ocean) like the Nile, Danube or Mississippi. - Barbarians - over the years they should "civilize" and turn into insurgents, pirates, etc. - Empires that are in crisis should break up into new AI-controlled states (like Rome or the USSR). - Scenarios and Casus Beli as in Europa Universalis. - Epidemics and population health.

[@GINXDocs]

Agree completely about pacing - especially on higher difficulties the ages just rocket by. If you're on PC I'd suggest checking out 'Take your Time Ultimate' mod - lots of customisation to make the pace of a game feel more realistic. They experimented with the other systems (Barbs evolving and Empires splitting up) with the new frontier pass - which makes me think they will lean into those areas more in the next game. Re: Casus Belli - probably in the minority here, but I liked Humankind's war support and resolution system. Feels better than civ's 'Take whatever you want' approach.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

@@GINXDocs oh and cultures should be like religions (like in EU series) PS. Thank you for the tip about mods. And about barbs - there is Barbarian Clans in Frontier Pass, but it's not perfect.

[@lococarl6890]

I've been playing a lot of Civ V again and my most glaring issue I would like to see fixed is the method for creating difficulty. The game doesn't even hide the fact that it isn't capable of actually improving their AI and instead create difficulty by just giving NPCs literal cheats. It's just frustrating to see AI start with free techs and build armies bigger than their economy should be able to support and shrug off -40 GPT debt because that's just how Civ gets its difficulty.

[@GINXDocs]

The ‘give the AI cheat-codes’ way of balancing is a really poor bandaid fix. It makes the player feel like they’re doing something wrong when the AI isn’t playing by the same rules. I don’t mind the AI getting a stronger start to balance things out. Old World handled this well imo - it was upfront with the AI getting a headstart, and it made the start of a game tough, but manageable. Obviously not as good as an AI that can play to a human’s level - but better than game wide cheating.

[@peterk7428]

Here's an idea that I think I heard PotatoMcWhiskey suggest: Make district choice impactful. By that I mean if your city's first district is a holy site it imparts some bonus to that city (1 extra amenity or something) whereas if the first district is a military one all units trained get 10% bonus to hp. Something like that.

[@GINXDocs]

This could be really interesting - I’d love to see a greater focus on individual cities within an empire. Special city wide policies or attaching great people to city centres to really specialise a location. Fits thematically, and would make building tall more interesting. (Not to mention, targeting specific cities to cut off an empires production or GPT income would make war more engaging)

[@Outside85]

I am not sure asymmetry is something that would work for Civilization simply because of the premise of the games. Sure, Warhammer(s) can dish out a dozen different factions with wildly different playstyles... but they are purpose made that way and sometimes it is in quite illogical directions. Civ on the other hand is doing alternative Earth history and once we step back a bit, gravity works the same in Beijing and in Paris and a spearman in Japan is the same as a spearman in Ethiopia. By all means you could comb through history and tweak all these things to their local variants but in the end its all just window dressing... also its a metric ton of work. Also I think I should point out that one of Civs strong points is the familiarity we have with the places and characters the game offers, if you alter it too much so these things become unrecognizable, we will just end up with another Beyond Earth... sure its kinda the same game as Civ, but the lack of familiar faces just made it a bit less interesting. (was for me atleast)

[@GINXDocs]

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think asymmetry to the degree of the other games would be the best move - every nation doesn’t need every individual unit to be different; just a few more twists here and there keeps things interesting imo. I find Kupe a really interesting leader. I play very differently with him over anyone else. Same with Eleanor of Aquitane, and Venice from Civ 5. They just function differently, so games with them play out uniquely. I’d love to see more civs with those interesting mechanics that change playstyles not just ‘cos I find them interesting to play, but because they’re great to have as an opponent. If I’ve got Eleanor as a neighbour, I will play differently and be more reactive - rather than simply being on autopilot. As you said, familiarity is a strong point of Civ, and I agree. Going absurd with it just wouldn’t fit the franchise and to be honest is better suited to other IPs. But they’ve already taken a few steps in the past, I’d just like them to see them take a few more.

[@jackfender1975]

Everything he wants with civ is what imo i hate about other games. If you want those awful story telling features etc. Choose one of the many orher games. The nice thing about civ is its always been simple with pure strategy with options for storytelling but you arent forced to go through lines of story. The factions are all different but you arent tied down with anyone victory and you can mix, match and adapt. Civ is different and i dont think sid should copy other games of the genre. Although it might be nice to not start with a settler like human kind removing the worry of placing your first city in bad spot and exploring the paleolithic era a little more. Then once youve founded your first city the civilization you chose at the beginning starts

[@GINXDocs]

That’s a really good shout about Humankind’s first era. That game had its fair share of problems but I thought starting as hunter gatherers and exploring the world before you put down your first city was an excellent mechanic. Made the start of a game much more engaging and interesting.

[@hito2501]

it needs the seriousness of design as it was in the fourth part. cartoonish for children, but they still won’t play such a complex, leisurely game. at the same time, all these simplifications repel hardcore players who were the core of civilization fans.

[@mmn8488]

I'd like to see more scenarios, made specifically for different nations. And in these scenarios for ancient nations I'd like to see the time span going more slowly, featuring more details of ancient times. Also would like to see more elaborated war strategies, such as geographical characteristics, positions and different status of the nations, propaganda etc. Impacting more on the wars between units and in sieges. In a way that with proper strategies you could win over stronger units. In civ 6 they made such developments but still i think it can get better

[@AV57]

Good suggestions. I’d like the ability for military units to use diplomacy. So, for example, if your fully healed and more powerful unit can attack a weaker unit, you have the option to negotiate with the opposition to spare the unit’s life and turn them into POWs in exchange for some better relations with the civilization you’re at war with. Then, when peace is declared, POWs are sent back to their home civilization.

[@Ayanami3rd]

I would love for the civilizations to feel more individual to play. Leaning into your 'asymmetry' proposition. But on top of making civs unique and more distinctive from the start, I'd also love to shape my civ. Build a ton of harbours? My people become seafolk. Build a lot of temples? My people start to form a religious movement that becomes the new core of my civilization. Oh, come to think of that - how about Civ7 put more emphasis on how the leader and the population interacted. With the leader's action forming the civilizarion, but the civilization also building on what their leader gave then, with various outcomes that are sometimes not easy to predict. Building a lot of holy sites could lead to a friendly faithful civilzation - or a raging mob that demands war with their agnostic neighbours. A nation that's built on trade could gain prosperity or wealth - or create an imbalanced society where the poor eventually revolt against the capitalist leaders. These could be fun challenges to tackle while maintaing your civilization as a whole, with the option to nudge your civilzation in a certain direction at any time, but always with potential consequences. People are not numbers! Make citizens great again!

[@GINXDocs]

I love this idea! Combines a degree of asymmetry and faction customisation, but in a way that plays out during a game. Something like that could also provide little objectives to vary up each game. Your seafaring citizens want you to discover a new continent, but if you fail to do this they might lose faith in you and a civilization change out of your control might take place. I think it would fit really well in the game, provide more choice for players, give some little curveballs to spice up each game - and also just give you as a player more freedom to tailor your nation.

[@tw7998]

I started with civ 1 in university (i am old). Four has probably been my fave. For me the problem with 5 & 6 was it felt like a board game instead of a sim. I would like to see better AI, and also back to it feeling like a world not a board game.

[@GINXDocs]

I know exactly what you mean. I think that’s where a few events tied to your population and people would work wonders. It’d make you feel more like a ruler, less like you’re playing to min/max tiles.

[@rizaldard3835]

too much complexity is not good for civ... for example someone who want to achieve diplomatic victory can't be bothered by over complex military management (they have to tend the military of course but not over complex) but some player who want to tinkering and tweaking max with one aspect can be rewarded handsomely....

[@Kassiaterabbitslayer]

The games wont take the crown of 4x historical game play because the fans will shift the goal posts. I would also say personally maybe it time that someone assassinated the tyrant cesar who has held that authority. Civ 7 i will be shocked if it innovates. I think they are happy with their niche. And the changes your looking for may not be what others want. Personally millennia is the one im most excited for. I have devoursd all the content and gives me in theory what i have wanted in my 4x game which is a sense of history. Old world is my #1 right now and more 4x games in the market is great thing. Humankind i was hyped for but hated. Long term found it boring as hell. Ara i haven't played. We disagree on the advisors and the government card system it felt counter to the game play in my opinion. Religous, economics and diplomatic play in civ are horribly lacking. And i hope this train for people wanting civ 7 now i dont understand. Civ 2 & 4 are the best civ games in my opinion Alpha centuari is great 4x and probably holds the throne as goat for me. Beyond being a spiritual succesor was my hope and it fun but i dont find it engaging in the same way. Civ 7 for me needs real dirty diplomacy, promises of hexes, terrority claim features based on war score. Ability to share city states with another player. Factions, a true memory system which remembers how u have acted in whole n to individual empires. I would like to see" leader draft " where usa starts with washington and as u progress new leaders come in replacing your old. Thia could be prevented early with monarchies n late by facism etc. If u like ur leader. Or short of that make historical figures advisors for each nation. And each advisor similar to 6 has unique polices which can be unlocked. Because for me i want a sense of history flowing and unique game play in tje beginning. Give the maori ocean start from the begining not as expansion. This also frees up to make the leaders packs more.worthy it as you can wild n wonderful without theming. If diasters and housing/districts are to stay. They must be in from the very beginning. Every game of civ should feel differnt and every playstyle must have achievable victory type and even i would suggest different endings videos based on the degree you forced a religon on others or let it peacefully spread. I also think every pop should be able to be a different religion allowing for those differences to influence a deeper diplomacy where citizens of certain religon or culture may stop contributing to ur city as form of civil unrest when u go to war with the leader of islam or Buddhism. I also think these religons need a effect or changes in playstyle when selected with unique policies to the religons. I want to be able to trade hexes and aee my trade routes in real time and have a a.i. which knows to target such routes. I want elections with differnt political parties within democratic governments. And similar to culture and religon these pops of ur cities could each individual be aligned differently. Requiring policies to be adopted or focus on goals to appease different parties.

[@loutre_assidue]

Something that isn't game changing but would definitely be a huge improvement (at least for me) is reworking the scaling of the civilian and military units in comparison to the cities, as well as how the camera works. Units should be smaller and the camera should automatically zoom to a proper level when a fight is engaged. The camera is also painful because it goes very fast to the other end of the map when you select "A unit needs orders". I would prefer if there was a smooth fade in effect. I would like to be able to terraform the land later in the game, like creating islands or being able to change the topography. When I started playing Civ VI, I thought at first that the seasteds tech allowed to create cities on water but was very disappointed that it wasn't the case. And yeah, a better AI and diplomacy is not very entertaining overall.

[@GINXDocs]

That’s a really solid point about the camera - I think a smooth fade in effect rather than snapping across the world would also just make maps feel bigger - and also just provide a more cinematic experience. I agree with the terraforming - especially if they lean into sea level rising in the later eras, moving your people onto artificial islands to keep expanding would be really interesting.

[@xventex9822]

I'm totally with you on that asymmetric game mechanic. I love Civ for it's many ways to win, but no matte which leader I play, I will always go for Combat win, technology win or diplomatic win. It really doesn't matter which nation you play because only the few early era feel different. That's something I would LOVE to see reshaped

[@dig-i-talj1m475]

Think of how many ppl and villages have been wiped out from a river attack? Think of how mapping out the US would have been for Lewis and Clark with out rivers. Rivers matter dang it, should be able to move up and down rivers with traders, explorers and small ships for battle. Ridiculous

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Yes! Nile, Danube, Mississippi etc. some major rivers should be navigable.

[@breakingcoin3529]

Everyone is overlooking the worst problem with Civ that NEEDS to be fixed. The DESYNCING in multiplayer every turn isnt a fun game mechanic and trumps all the other suggestion for civ 7. It makes the game literally unplayable for more than two people. This is a major bug and should be the top priority for devs going into civ 7. When it comes to this video I think forcing players to play their civ a certain way restricts creativity and strategy. I think creating greater incentives for players to play towards their civ buffs would be a good idea. I dont think it would be a good idea to force certain civs to only be able to be peaceful or not allow diplomacy. This will just make Civ one dimensional. I think they do have to do something about the late game as the game ends up getting too stagnant. maybe make more consequences for going to war etc. while make non war gameplay more interesting. I would like to see a rework of diplo to include proposals rather than in civ 6 where they just prompt proposals based on whats happening in the game. Other than that i would agree that they need to shake it up but with this comes risk of just a bad game so im not too sure.

[@GINXDocs]

Great points - and yeah the multiplayer is 100% an issue. It's a core part of the game, and it should just work. I haven't played multiplayer in a few years - but my experience was the same. Took a fun experience and made it frustrating, and I never tried multiplayer again!

[@glennsmith3303]

Like how you did not Humankind as one of the good ones. I was soo disappointed with that. The others you mentioned.., all are great!

[@OriginalCurtAtWork]

For me, one marginally large change I would LOVE to see... Instead of having the game end around 2050, have it end a little later. Say maybe run until 2300. You could have some really fun creative future tech. You could have underwater cities, and a land grab for the ocean floors. Maybe have expansion into near earth orbit with space stations. How the space stations would work might be tricky, but it sure would be fun. Have moon bases.

[@GINXDocs]

Didn't mention it in the video - but yes, underwater cities are actually number one on my Civilization wishlist. I really thought we were going to get them in Gathering Storm! Space Stations also would be great, and would definitely make a space race feel more engaging

[@GINXDocs]

WE’RE NOT HERE ANYMORE! For our latest content, check out: www.youtube.com/@ginxtv Over there you'll find our very best material, with expert news, opinions, reviews, interviews and much more. All served with our usual dose of British self-deprecation. Subscribe now to stay up to date with all your usual favourites, plus a whole lot of brand new and exciting videos that we can't wait to show you! See you on the other side!

[@theepicdevil7892]

I want it to have a style and interface similiar to 5 with civ 4 enhanced features then plus watever ideas sound cool for a dlc personally I’d rather them just come out with everything straight off the bat then for dlcs you can purchase additional civs aswell as leaders that have different abilities

[@mickusmick]

Maybe adding new elements like health? Drug addiction? Gambling addiction? Gambling addiction would impact your income but also the crime in your city's and then also the health. Means adding a health district and maybe adding a casino district. I'd also love to be able to give a nod to Indigenous people in each civilisation. Either play as the Aboriginal and Torrres Strait Islander peoples of Australia or introduction of policies that acknowledge the value these people add to a civilisation like fire management or country specific luxury resources. Get real complicated and introduce microgovernments in each city so that their are federal policy cards then state policy cards that are unlocked with districts.

[@GINXDocs]

I’d like to see more societal disasters. Health and disease were a part of Civ 3 & 4 (not a huge part) and I’m surprised they didn’t come back to it with later releases. I think something like that would also be a great way to introduce more diplomatic play. A plague has sprung up in parts of the world, different leaders need to work together to combat it. Maybe you can provide aid to another civ in a time of great hardship, and then leverage those actions an era later. I think the indigenous people's idea would be interesting as well - tribal huts that you don’t just ransack, but leave them be - and they’ll grow and interact with you.

[@AV57]

I need to gamble so I can pay back my bookie!

[@bearlogg7974]

CIV 7 needs weight: Other leaders need to feel realistic to a degre where you feel as you have genuine allies & enemys to really negotiate with outside of trade/denounce. Civilians need to be more defined/alive instead of a number statistic so you feel attatchment & get terrified of getting nuked/nuking others becuae it will have weight, could be done by something as simple as showing a splash screen of kids playing in a peacefull nation or a military dystopiaina hostile nation before confirming a nuke.

[@karlfran0404]

I went off Civ when the City States started being a big deal. When they first came out it was refreshing. Then I realised it breaks the immersion. There I am with a lone settler, ands suddenly I wander into a fully built city state. Like... WTF did they come from? It just didn't feel like "From the dawn of time" anymore. Otherwise I liked the nuances here. There is a lot of colour that could be added.

[@TwistedMarksman]

The only thing I want is more historical scenarios. Seems like an easy way to make money too.

[@alexz9813]

I would like to see a type of scenario where time going slower for research and eras but stay the same for troop building and movements and where it goes in depth for each age and tech/culture tree. Also I want civs to be assymetrical more. Different units, different playstyles, different bonuses. Choices need to be harder for districts but the district rewards better. We should have unit morale, governors should have special abilities where you could assign them to do something. Diplomacy should be much more complex and not just see simple agendas and all these passive aggresive or sycophant messages out of nowhere. I want their agendas to be more detailed and communication between civs better and more complex. I want dynamic events where the players has to make some choices (evacuate cities/districts, execute criminals, cut forest with an impact of morale, lure foreign spies, the spies should be reworked as well). Have spies infiltrate and change policies of other nations, turn districits/ cities/ nations better. I want religion to have a bigger impact (lose science, have events where you burn witches for example, lose moral over choices). I want sanitation and health to be a thing not just a building. Have plagues or debuffs if there are no doctors. Implement limited political system with city mayors and their own beliefs could somewhat change cities. Have bigger maps so the distance between nations and cities is actually something to think about. Have migration for example because of bad management

[@kevnar]

Tropico is the worst for sequels that didn't need to exist. Every sequel since Tropico 4 hasn't actually changed the core gameplay. All they've done is tweak the graphics and added a few mechanics that feel no more in-depth than a DLC. As long as Civ keeps actually innovating, I'm happy.

[@GINXDocs]

That's a really good point - and you're right. I tried a few of the newer Tropico games and they all just blend together. I'd rather have big changes that take risks even if they don't land. That to me is better than just recycling the same game over and over.

[@MarkGalean]

I would add something about: -Pollution in the urban areas and policies to deal with it. -More complex economy, like the real stock market and its consequences, you know Wall Street and stuff. -Health District and Pandemic. -Crime rate and safety index in the cities.

[@iditrirajan]

From Civ 6, why not introduce concept of diseases? If we can have disasters, i don't see why shall we not have diseases. And on a side note, please give us other cultural leader for India. 😭😭😭😭 Im glad they added Chandragupta with Rise & Fall but I'd love to have alternative to Gandhi while playing as India. Also with Civ 6, one thing i noticed is that only "Special trait" is different. The rest is same. I dont think that should be the case. It doesn't make sense why Varu, an offensive troop, should be special unit for Gandhi who was a pacifist. Why not having more tools on his side which can be used to instill peace? This would also mean tjat you cant instigate war with Gandhi. This would go with the idea you suggested as it would incentivise multiple playstyles. Now i love district and micromanagement but i hope they flesh it out a bit. Because why am i making Oxford University and University separately? The same goes for Temple and Mahabodhi Temple. Well, they might show us the preview next month so yeah. However one thing id like them to keep is having a map like Civ 6 but leader stuff like Civ 5. Also i dont know if its an issue with Civ 5 but after a point there's too much visual clutter in screen, i hope they fix that too. Also tech unique to Civilisations would be great too

[@uaputte]

It needs a working and fun combat system and a usefull diplomatic system!!!

[@uaputte]

And lern alot from the Gladius game!

[@GINXDocs]

Gladius is really top tier when it comes to warfare in a 4X. Really excited to see what the developers do with their next game - ZEPHON

[@shryggur]

My main concerns with the series so far are on the technical side, actually: undercooked UI, dull AI, and weak modability. All this hurts the experience greatly. As for the mechanics, I agree with you on every point. I'd summarize it this way. Late game is boring and at times straight up tedious. It seems like the core mechanics is polished really well, but all the newer ones are pretty raw and don't work well together. That's why they only change the gameplay on the surface, making it more cluttered. I think the gameplay itself should change with time. Early game is micromanagement where you build separate buildings and direct each trader. One of the more daring experiments could be gradual shifting of the gameplay from micro to indirect marco as your civics make a more complex society. Instead of building solar farms one by one, you could work through taxation, diplomacy, and internal policies, and watch how your nation changes itself with no hands-on control. Or, at the very least, you should be able to automate the construction of the damn railroad and the like. Why did they cut it out of the game?? To me, in general Civ 6 was better than Civ 5 in many aspects, but diplomacy experienced a huge downgrade. I think better, more flexible, organic, "narrative" and consequential diplomacy would benefit Civ 7 greatly. And yeah, about narrative... Give a game a good tutorial for once! Make a campaign with multiple levels, as in, IDK, Sierra-like city builders, and explain each mechanic, one by one, in great detail. I don't consider it good game design when you can play a game for a decade and still learn loads of details from random how-to videos just because the mechanics aren't documented anywhere. All that would make an absolutely perfect 4X game for me. Same core gameplay, more thought put into user experience.

[@VirtualMaXine]

Just please don't make Civ 7 a PC ported mobile game. I want a real PC game. And get rid of the Disney cartoon art style from Civ 6.

[@Sabotage1964]

Comment regarding 3:38, civ actually tried this in beyond earth with unique affinity units and it was (still is) quite fun. If they integrated some of the more experimental/beta mechanics from civbe like being able to control how your units and buildings work, rising tides customizable diplomacy, direct or indirect ways to manipulate barbarians, etc.

[@lucadebonis5242]

A progression of your civilization in "Empire Earth-style" and not just based only on discovered Tech wouldn't be bad either: at the end of the game all civilizations look similar and the same. Instead, a bonus/malus system based on one's actions during an era would be useful, to create unique civilizations over time and History.

[@lajoszsommd1526]

Alpha centauri and Old world: great story with characters, diplomacy, new bold features, great balance, never get old! Best of the best.

[@TheTel]

It seems like the most common criticism people have of current civ is GIVE US MORE INTERESTING AI. I agree with that. The AI doesn't really feel dynamic or interesting enough to be fun. Honestly if civ stayed exactly the same except for radically overhauling the AI/diplomacy systems I think it'd be a massive upgrade. That being said, I also would love to see better pacing, where there's more time to enjoy early game unique units, and I'd also like to see some kind of disease or pandemic system, that's one powerful force in history that they don't include. It would also be cool to see different early game domestic plants and animals offer different gameplay choices. Being a wheat society vs a rice society vs a maize society, or choosing to focus on agriculture vs pastoralism vs fishing for the early game.

[@GINXDocs]

The AI is really the biggest room for improvement. Been playing a lot of Old World lately and its just so much better. If small studios can pull that off, I hope Firaxis are cooking up something special for Civ VII. I really like the resource idea. I always found it strange how the resources you have available don't really impact you aside from yields. Given that many historical civs were shaped by what they had around them, would be interesting to see that affect your nation more.

[@AV57]

I want the ability to control the number of turns in each era. It’s just never seemed right that the first 100 turns equals 2500 years, but the last 100 turns spans 50 years (or so).

[@lucadebonis5242]

Next Civ7 must have larger maps than those seen in the previous two chapters, a less cartoon style, a diplomacy worthy of the name, not limited to just being enemies/friends or exchanging this or that resource. The AI ​​must be able to better manage its military units (especially maritime ones). Must have the Loyalty mechanic: cities on the fringes of the empire could start a war of succession and found civilizations of their own if not properly managed. And he also needs to stop releasing more Leaders as DLC or making his portrait stupid and ironic: they are heads of state, not clowns!

[@gerwyntiberius1918]

better AI using Chat GPT or something similar, so we get unique responses and interactions. Culture should play more like religion does. Each culture is supposedly a unique one, so it's odd that your culture immediately takes over conquered cities and adds to your own. Diseases, plagues, immigration/emigration. Longer Ancient age, starting prior to agriculture. A stone age start would be cool, having to learn how to create fire, smelt copper and tin. use flint as a strategic resource for weapons.

[@mickusmick]

Call me nostalgic, but in the world of AI it could be done real well now. I use to love the cheeky advisors in Civ II and the throne upgrades when the people celebrated you. I've gone back to play Civ II just for those features a couple of times. Some of the points you mentioned are fair, that being said, I also like that the game isn't too built on fantasy ideas. Sure, they could introduce a mode that allows the war craft fans to mould their civilisations into orcs and whatever, but I certainly don't need that. I like to play a diplomatic game, I'd like to be able to play in a way that allows me to create a world I'd like to live in. One of the bug bears for me is that in each game I find myself being pushed to go for some kind of domination victory filled with war because the diplomatic victory becomes too hard or the culture or science victories become too hard. I don't know how you could improve this game, the developers have some work to do to build a Civilisation 7.

[@GINXDocs]

I’d love to see Civ 7 go heavy into diplomacy - but flesh it out into different approaches. It seems 99% of the time you’re only interacting with one civ at a time - but it’d really open things up if you could tie other nations into the equation. Ie. I will trade you X if you close your borders to Y. Declare war with Z and I’ll provide a steady flow of gold to fund it. Something like that would let you indirectly alter the world stage, without the need for constant war. Oh I should have added the throne upgrades - and the palace upgrades from civ 3 - to the list. I loved that feature. So simple but it brought me so much joy!

[@Sam_Hyde_Apologist]

I think districts should be far more specific (maybe only 3 per city but those districts drastically shape what that city can do) better AI Units need to be better balanced, ranged units are easily the best and siege are trash. A powerful military should be having all types and using them correctly, the larger army should be the better one make science weaker, perhaps if you are making units from an era ahead of the current one there is a big production nerf towards them, higher tech units shouldn't be as strong compared to previous ones. far better diplomacy and trade. Allies are almost impossible in civ 5 and essentially free in civ 6, allies should form from how they benefit each other not by doing arbitrary things they like. Domestic trading should be a big part of your game plan grievances need to be reworked and other civs need to stop caring so much about what everyone does. especially in the early game, makes no sense why shaka across the world hates me because I destroyed 3 cities that belonged to a civ he doesnt even like. units need to move faster and some unit stacking should be brought back, (perhaps if you have a ranged and melee unit on the same tile you can only attack another unit if its the same one as yours?) religion needs a huge overhaul, far more passive spreading and impacting the world through food, aid money world council needs an overhaul, more like civ 5 but with more frequent events and everyone should be able to propose things far more often happiness needs to be perfected, in civ 5 its an annoying mechanic, in civ 6 its marginal, having ecstatic cities only gives 10% boost in yields, but that not enough for how many luxuries you need growing tall should be more viable, but not the default like in civ 5 naval units and cities need a major rework casus belli are a great idea, they just need to be actually useful outside of the very late game nd occasional circumstance

[@TheTel]

Another thought: what about introducing decline? Disasters and dark ages are a hint of that- disease would be too. What about inefficiency, declining popularity of traditions, permanent environmental shifts, things like that? Forgetting the old ways? What if civs could actually regress for a period, not just expand forever?

[@GINXDocs]

I believe Ara: History Untold is toying around with those ideas. Civilizations in the game that fall too far behind can essentially become abandoned and left by the way side, creating an incentive for players to keep up else they essentially just become spoils for the civs that 'survive'. Interesting concept - don't know how it'll play out but I guess we'll find out when that game comes out. I think Civ VII can really learn a lot by looking at these out-of-the-box ideas others are doing, and thinking how it can fit that sort of thing into its formula, and for its audience.

[@arthvader1]

AI opponent with more realistic graphic style and Crusader Kings diplomacy would be ideal.

[@crhu319]

1. Bigger text on screens and less stupid framing and buttons and etc, the main screen shouldnt be so much easier to read than diplomacy. 2. Districts should be possible to crowd into 1/2 or even 1/3 or 2/3 of a tile. Then would still get adjacency along those sides only. So less per district but more total per tile as the only thing you can put in the tile is anither district. That allows islands and peninsulas and mountain valleys to be far more viable starting positions. 3. The storyline event idea outlined here yes would make games more different. 4. Religion, tourism and culture more integrated with less of a menu approach & more systenic themes (musical civilizations that start with religious acoustic spaces that then becone secularized and attract students and tourists). Some civs are just more effective at certain cultural norms than others.

[@Ceractucus]

Agree 100% Here are some ideas I have. When you select a new nation, you get choices. To start with you get a major virtue and two minor. Same with flaws. Examples: Longboats, Viking, maj virtue: Expires with steam power. All your boats can sail across the sea or down rivers. +2 movement if you start on a coastal area. If on a coastal or river area, your boats can turn into raiders (2), soldiers (2), scouts (2), merchant (1) settler (1) limit once per age. The other units are limited to 4 times per age. So assuming you make a settler once per age you can pick and choose amongst the rest 3 other times. Soldiers are two random units of your current tech level. Raiders are two melee units of your tech level, that are very good at ravaging the countryside. This does not provoke war. The enemy can pay you in gold and resources to disband the raiders. Merchants may pass through borders. They are expended upon entering a foreign city and you get cash and/or other goodies based on how far the merchant was from your kingdom. Blitzkrieg, Germany, min virtue: when you are at war for the first 10 turns, your land units get +2 movement and may attack an extra time.. Being near an enemy unit does not affect your movement. When an enemy unit is attacked, it takes +20% damage for every other adjacent unit. Peace-loving, India, maj flaw: Nations are 25% less likely to war with you. You may only declare war on nations that have seized your cities. You may only attack the seized cites, and units defending them. The war ends after 20 turns or as soon as you reclaim the territory. You can only declare war once per era. Tsushima, Russia, min flaw. When at war with an enemy nation they temporarily gain three of your technologies, or they get 3 units of their own tech level. When the war ends they lose the technologies, but are inspired for those technologies, or they gain your next technology. Each nation also gets a golden era of greatness. With two effects out of a choice of several. The Era will be whichever age the nation reached its zenith. 2nd age for Rome, Steam age for America etc.. The Nile, Egypt, 1st age: you start adjacent to a river that is at least seven tiles long. At least 4 tiles adjacent to this river will make good farms. One of these squares starts as a farm. Farms made adjacent to this river during the first age provide +1 food for the length of the game. OR Age of wonders, Egypt, 1st age. When the game begins, choose three 1st age wonders, no other nation can build them. Or choose one 1st age wonder, on turn 20 it appears near your capital. (If it requires a special terrain, the tile conversion to that terrain type. OR Era of great men, Egypt, first age. You get a hero (described later) as soon as you reach the second age. Client state, Rome, 2nd age: During this age twice during any war you can force your enemy to consider its chances of winning. Based on relative strength, and number of units as well as disparity in war based technologies it will either fight on, offer you cities, or become a client state. If they choose to become a client state, their nation is turned over to you but it’s cities are run by their AI, except for production queue. Heroes. Every nations chooses one of three heroes that will lead your country. Each hero has a unique “quest” to create. The quest would be a combination of reaching different goals, of resources, war, religion, army size, etc, etc. Otto von Bismarck, German, hero. Quest: combined population of 30, Republic or later government. Have taken at least two enemy cities. Gain +25% political favor. War weariness has half the effect. +2 favor from every known city state. Three times per game, and once per age you can activate political maneuvering. Up to three nations that have not recently denounced you may join a war alliance. You must pay them cash/territories/production/ conquered cities based on their level of help. When the war is over you can declare war on your war allies for the next 40 turns and suffer 66% less bad reputation. Other quite lesser choices: (getting tired this will be brief, might edit later. Each nation gets a number of lesser abilities. 1: special units: all units of a certain type: scout, spear, ranged, siege, will get minor bonuses for the duration of the game. Unit types that appear later get better bonuses based on how much less time you get with them. District: each nation gets a unique district or specialized bonuses from a normal district. Etc. Note: in case it is not clear every one of these choices. Will come with at least three alternatives. Based on this, and based on the fact that all AI is making the same choices no two playthroughs will ever be the same. AI changes: Based on your staring difficulty, AI choices can be random, some picked by you, all picked by you, or all picked by the AI. AI strategy choices: Based on difficulty, you can program the AI strategy choices. This will include victory focus, response to aggression, war aggressiveness, as well as greater and lesser advantages, Greater advantages could include the usual lots of free stuff to start with, tech catch up, bonus units when at war with you, etc. banning wonders, locking down wonders for itself etc, etc, etc. Final note: I am not sure how feasible this is, but wouldn’t it be cool, if enemy behavior at each difficulty was modeled on a player that performed well at that difficulty? Even just tracking the starting nation choices of strong players at that difficulty level would be interesting.

[@2HARD2K1LL]

how does this man not have 500k subs

[@mayonnaise7128]

Right?

[@allenmathews3085]

Need the civ graphics to look less cartoony like a kid show. Civ V had good graphics need something similar and updated in civ 7

[@coa9080]

2 things I want to see: - AI that isn't dumb and that doesn't need literal cheating to be competitive - Economic victory

[@TheDevilbound]

Asymmetry is the first thing you bring up? Going to ignore you know. Do you even civ bro.

[@mindedtester9951]

Civ 5 was better than Civ 6. I didnt like how cartoony Civ 6 felt

[@danielgyllenbreider]

AI of course. Its not acceptable to play on Deity and have one great attack from the AI during the first 100 turns and then not a single declaration of war after that, even if the AI has tonnes of units. Just silly. That is a deal breaker. Will not buy 7 before i know that is adressed. More logical thought and reason on the core features as well. I mean, who thinks it makes sense to plan city placement 4000 BC in order to be able to build Ruhr in industrial era? Things like that. Also, much more freedom to customize civs and settings.

[@GINXDocs]

I'm really praying Civ VII is the installment we see that big AI upgrade. I feel like the games have got more complex, but the AI hasn't gained any nuance. That definitely seems to be the overwhelming reaction and big wish from the community.

[@BiNumLi]

Great points. Like the story driven events route. Ideally with choices to expand the possible outcomes and development. CIV VI has used environmental crises to cause chaos. Would really like to see more civilization changing dynamics, early, mid, and late game. Example: world wide pandemics, hacker interruption of power and communications, extra world exploration [suppose there were fertile or mineral rich moons and asteroids?], terrorist cells expanding like cancers into new rebel nations to rival world powers, underground cities, random chance of complete dissolution of the world congress, forced division of the world into irreconcilable mega-alliances in which players lose a degree of control of their people, armies, resources, or development. The list goes on. We don't need more mechanics to learn. We need more ways the game can evolve and unexpectantly turn.

[@kekshunter4566]

I liked the events at humankind. They allow you to give your own culture and population more personality. The problem here, however, was that there were too few events. After playing 3 times or so, they became repetitive. Maybe you can introduce more events like this for Civ 7. e.g. when you discover luxury goods or bonus resources, you get a small bonus and a nice text to choose an action... etc

[@GINXDocs]

Agreed - Humankind was very refreshing for the first few hours, but you quickly realise that the few dozen events that pop up are the same every time. But fundamentally, I do like the system, as long as it's got some variety and the decisions feel like they impact your game.

[@DL-fi5cc]

Civ 7 Needs: MUCH BETTER communication between you and the other countries leaders, its basic at best & needs more options, this is what makes the game boring for me, countries have been in regular contact with each other for a very long time and the people running the country changes regularly... the first time a country told me to “move troops away from the border” was ace but I quickly found out you can’t do the same, that’s rubbish. An improvement in communication is going to be complicated to program but come on, at least try and make the game more interesting. More goods to trade, goods that run out or dwindle making things cheaper or more expensive, the ability to sell on something bought from 1 country to another. Areas on the map that become effected by two countries either in disagreement or at war which prevents your trade route from working entirely or partially. Fingers crossed it improves or they’ll lose customers.

[@GINXDocs]

Would love to see more weight put into diplomacy - and feeling like not every decision is in your hands. I always feel very in control in Civ - would be great to have more forces beyond your control (for instance, as you mentioned, a fluctuating global price of trade goods). Elements that you can influence, but ultimately have to adapt to.

[@kadeprejean3855]

They need to add events like old world then I’ll come back.the event system in old world is the sole reason I find it better than civ ever since I played it.

[@tl1758]

Some ideas: - rivers that can not be crossed freely, expect you have pioneers to build bridges or you come to shallows - which you cloud also fortify, or you have boats as units with you - more realistic design - I mean it is a history game - less hustle with religion. Throwing lightnings between priests... I mean no population has changed their belief freely in history to an extent that can be achieved with those guys... - slower pace. Some units are literally useless as by the time you built them you are likely to discover the more advanced ones (like fighters) - more siege techniques in ancient / medieval time. - realistic logistics and starvation when moving far away from settlement or roads or at encirclement - overview of what affect political decisions have - more cunning AI - that not all AI gets immediately and totally upset if you attack someone - global votes are rubbish... there was no UN in ancient time around the globe... it does not work till this day... especially with civs you did not even met before... - maybe more levels of equipment per unit or technology as a low level research goal - navy has very limited use in civ - always been this way. It should really be able to block trade for instance. - you might learn or have some economic use from destroying enemy forces (size technology or capture weapons) - you might borrow money as a stat for interests from other states - I mean it is pretty common thing to do - climate changes that are less fatal - there have been a small ice age or yes we have the global warming, still it does not flood the coasts in a decade... - maybe season changes in late game (1 turn = 1 season) - martians who invade the Earth and build the Pyramids - just kidding ;)

[@GINXDocs]

There's definitely a running trend of Civ fans wanting better rivers - and it makes sense. They are very important! I agree with these points though. Would be nice to see Civ take a few notes from Grand Strategy Games, how they approach diplomacy, economies, politics etc to make the game feel a bit meatier A few deep systems rather than lots of shallow ones.

[@robertogarcia5677]

Ahora puedes hacer este vídeo en español por favor que no entendí ni madafaka,se ve interesante

[@markussmedhus9717]

CIV 7 needs a post-game roguelite mode :]

[@logixindie]

Yeah hope the mid and especially late game are more engaging.

[@caseyb1346]

Absolutely not to faction customization. Different Civs are not alien species. They are all human, and have the same human potential. Furthermore they are historical nations. The whole world followed roughly the same tech tree. One nation did not invent paper, and the other was welp if you're the paper nation, we're the crochet all our texts nation. Every nation used spears and shields. Then guns, and then tanks and planes. It may be boring but reality follows Occams razor. The differences between all of us are really just cultural...our food, our music, societal structures, ect. Also you have to consider the feelings of the people belonging to these nations. Sure us in America may be rootless mutts, but do you really think players in Russia or China want to be locked in to playing a Communist state if they play their home nation? Do you think British players want to be forced to be colonialist bastards? Hell what if I want to be a Communist America for that matter?

[@GINXDocs]

I completely see your point - and it's a very valid one. I agree, the malleability of how you play a nation is a big draw of the series. The extent I was getting at wasn't about removing options from the players or shoehorning them into certain playstyles - but giving them options to take nations in their own way. They've done it to an extent with Civ VI - by picking Genhis Khan or Kublai Khan you can have a very different experience with Mongolia. It makes a nation play and act very differently. This is the sort of area I'd like to see the series lean into a bit more - as I personally love those leaders that just play differently.

[@caseyb1346]

@@GINXDocs ok that makes sense. I too love the more unique leaders like Eleanor and Kupe. I am actually a modder for Civ 6 so I make my own nations and leaders now. Well most I keep to myself, but I did release the Scythia Redux mod in the Steam Workshop. Still a conquest civ, but a bit more balanced. Needs some work, despite my best efforts Scythia when played by the AI still sucks. It's like they need that double cav bonus just to be relevant. Speaking of, god I wish they would unlock the source so we could fix the AI directly. It's soo bad 😞

[@Gigi-xr3qs]

Who else thought this was a woman speaking?

[@misterivo4141]

your voice. you sound like a little kid

[@jacobl1657]

Civ 5 art style. I need nothing else

[@BollyFan2-ue6cq]

How about you play the entire ancient era without choosing a civ. When the world enters the next era, you get to choose which civ you want to play, depending on your spawn location and gameplay situation you end up in. You could also start the game with 2 scouts instead of a warrior and have 7 first turns when no one can settle, just move around and explore the surroundings.

[@BollyFan2-ue6cq]

Maybe you have to research all ancient era techs and civics before being able to go into next eras tree. When you are done with all techs and civics in Ancient era, then you can choose a civ.

[@GINXDocs]

Humankind sort of did this with starting in the Neolithic era - and while I've got my issues with that game - that was a really excellent system and I agree, something like that would work well in Civ. (and probably result in less time reroling the map at the start of each game!)

[@partlycloudy1942]

A.i Ithat's all they need to do.. A.I

[@JaKingScomez]

Damn dude your voice

[@JaKingScomez]

Damm dude your voice

[@Dave-PL]

We don't need a new Civilization VII. We need to remaster the Civilization III. We need 1k, 2k resolution support, animations and Linux/Steam Deck support ❤

[@BollyFan2-ue6cq]

What they should do is that Artifact Ruins do not show up unless an archeologist steps within visibility range of them. That will encourage late game re-exploring. Maybe there also needs to be a way to see which hexes have been visited archeologically, especially when clicking on an Archeologist.

[@jRsqILVOY]

It really needs logistics like Shadow Empire, and diplomacy and war/casus belli like EU4.

[@utopiaOKC]

My major issue is if i declare war, everyone im not allies or friends with denounces me. There should be a way to have a EU of sorts so u can join major alliances. And there should be callus belli (i know thats wrong lmao) earlier on. Like if uoure within 6 tiles of my capital and make a city, i should be able to do a territory war with no penalty.

[@peanutgorilla]

They need to bring back the SciFi and Fantasy scenarios from Civ II A Test of Time

[@bernardobecker4675]

With a better AI I would be playing for longer, it would keep more players for sure

[@basyapupkin3444]

Civ 7 needs to be called Civilization Beyond Earth 2

[@coolsunday6339]

All we want from 7 is better AI with LLM.

[@GINXDocs]

If this was a thing I would just spend all game texting Gilgamesh

[@GundamGokuTV]

Saying the hexagon shape is superior is just so beyond wrong that I'm stopping watching right here. Nah dog. The series has only gone down hill because of the sweeping changes it made from 4 to 5. Other 4x games have risen up and become popular because Civ dropped the ball so damn hard.

[@baph0met32]

1. useless video. 2. just free promotion of other games. Well done. u d be a great politician. proposing something of empty value... 1. I dream of a world without world hunger 2. I dream of a world without killings 3. i dream of a world with free hospitals and education. What do you propose we do to achieve this? Result: An ABSOLUTELY USELESS 11;18 min video....

[@mayonnaise7128]

What are you yapping about he literally explained the series and created elaborate solutions to the named problems Result: useless comment