What after the New Frontier Pass - the end or more

[pokiehl]

How have any of those things aside from slavery been represented in other civ games, and is the absence of slavery really a gameplay dealbreaker for
you or anyone else ? How is Civ 6 different in that regard? Keep in mind Civ 6 even has a policy called Triangular Trade - a completely direct reference to slavery.

Civ 5 certainly never had any of those things including slavery and I never heard anyone complain about “political correctness.”

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

Civ VI is pretty sanitized in terms of historical atrocities. Slavery is not really represented, with maybe the exception of the Aztec's ability to get workers when killing enemy units. There's no forced reappropriation of land away from the original inhabitants to create stability after an invasion. There's no overt limitations of freedoms or human rights of individuals inside of a fascist regime, etc. etc.

Each of these things would carry with them gameplay systems that would complicate the game further, so you can argue that they have been left out for that reason rather than strictly politics. But I generally have an impression that Civ VI tries to convey a 'feel-good fun-time' with a historical flavour, rather than try to actually teach about the real downsides to having lived in the past...

Theres totally forced reappropriating land- when you conquer a city it’s population shrinks and if you make it grow with your citizens via chops or trade route or whatever, it’s loyalty rebounds.

How much imagination does it take to see that mechanic that way?

 

[AntSou]

How have any of those things aside from slavery been represented in other civ games, and is the absence of slavery really a gameplay dealbreaker for
you or anyone else ? How is Civ 6 different in that regard? Civ 5 certainly never had any of those things including slavery and I never heard anyone complain about “political correctness.”

The tone is lighter in Civ 6 compared to 5, from what I recall. I don't see it as a deal breaker or "political correctness" since that term seems to be applied way too liberally anyway.

However, in my opinion that was a peculiarity of Civ 5 which was also absent in previous Civ iterations. So if anything Civ 5 is the odd one out in this regard.

 

[Myomoto]

Theres totally forced reappropriating land- when you conquer a city it’s population shrinks and if you make it grow with your citizens via chops or trade route or whatever, it’s loyalty rebounds.

How much imagination does it take to see that mechanic that way?

You can argue that, sure.

All I'm saying is that many other historical strategy/grand strategy games on the market have much more overt references these things

It creates a specific kind of atmosphere and tone, more towards realism (even if the game mechanics themselves are unrealistic).

 

[pokiehl]

The tone is lighter in Civ 6 compared to 5, from what I recall. I don't see it as a deal breaker or "political correctness" since that term seems to be applied way too liberally anyway.

However, in my opinion that was a peculiarity of Civ 5 which was also absent in previous Civ iterations. So if anything Civ 5 is the odd one out in this regard.

Yes the atmosphere of Civ 6 certainly has less gravitas or seriousness than Civ 5 (and I hope we return to a more serious tone next game).

But let’s keep focused on what my post was a reply to: someone implied that Civ 6’s gameplay was suffering because it was too “politically correct.”

I still don’t know what that means and I still don’t see how anything in Civ 6’s gameplay is more politically correct than Civ 5 or whatever. Our pointing out that Civ 6 has brighter colors or sillier quotes doesn’t have anything to do with gameplay, right?

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

You can argue that, sure.

All I'm saying is that many other historical strategy/grand strategy games on the market have much more overt references these things

I think the game abstracts these things to such an extent it takes imagination to see them, but I don’t think the mechanics are absent.

I think the other issue is that if you wanted to work some sort of exploitative colonial empire (conquer foreign cities and build builders/work city projects in harbors or commercial hubs- leaving the conquered cities poor and undeveloped so you can reinvest in your primary cities) you most certainly could.

It just is sub optimal gameplay. Cities are more valuable with fully developed infrastructure. Maybe that’s PC, but probably just has more to do with how you want to play the game.

 

[Myomoto]

Yes the atmosphere of Civ 6 certainly has less gravitas or seriousness than Civ 5 (and I hope we return to a more serious tone next game).

But let’s keep focused on what my post was a reply to: someone implied that Civ 6’s gameplay was suffering because it was too “politically correct.”

I still don’t know what that means and I still don’t see how anything in Civ 6’s gameplay is more politically correct than Civ 5 or whatever. Our pointing out that Civ 6 has brighter colors or sillier quotes doesn’t have anything to do with gameplay, right?

No it doesn't. I do not think it's accurate to say that Civ 6's gameplay suffers from political correctness. I don't even know what that means. You can't declare war on a female leader until you've declared an equal amount of wars against male leaders?

 

[pokiehl]

No it doesn't. I do not think it's accurate to say that Civ 6's gameplay suffers from political correctness. I don't even know what that means. You can't declare war on a female leader until you've declared an equal amount of wars against male leaders?

Agreed that it is a curious concept, hence my interest in learning more about what the poster meant. He said:

(and I have feeling I might not like it because I expect they will lean more toward political correctness of nowadays then actual historical simulation)

Granted the wording is unclear but in context (plus jumping into the term "simulation") made me think that this is referring to gameplay, so I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt rather than dismissing it as yet another person being personally aggrieved that the game dares to include female leaders or something.

 

[Zegangani]

I think, with political correctness, they meant The Choices for Civs (primarily Leaders)/Barbarians in Civ VI rather than the Gameplay Mechanisms. Like FXS trying being politically correct in introducing Leaders that aren't controversial (Like introducing Hitler as the Leader for Germany (optimal for a WWII Scenario, but maybe that's why we don't have such Scenarios) and an alternate Leader for Poland, or something) or naming the Barbarian Tribes after Tribes/Clans IRL that were discribed by some Civs as Barbarians (But were not, maybe except some very few ones).

In this regard I think FXS made the right choices, but they also aren't holding very tight on to this, since Khublai Khan as an alternate Leader for China is a conroversial choice (a lot of Chinese People wouldn't/don't like this).
But on the other hand, It's (just) a Game that simulates an "alternate" History, so "Political Correctness" is out of place here. So the Choices made in that regard are just precautions to not loose Fans (Perhaps with a Civ Ban in certain Countries, hence less Money to make).

(That's how I understood the Wording)

 

[bbbt]

Everything's relative, none of the PC civ games are pure "history simulation game" and none of them are pure "tabletop board game", but civ6 is closer to a "board game" than civ4, and civ4 is closer to a "history simulator" than civ6.

I'd like that tendency to be reversed for civ7.

I don't really see that at all tbh. They are both basically board games imho - Civ 4 is closer to the style of the Avalon Hill strategy games that were popular in that era (including the 'Civilization' board game Sid Meier swears wasn't an influence), and Civ 6 is closer to the 'EuroGame' style of game that is popular now. In both you have entire "god-like" control of your empire - where people settle, what they research, what they build, what policies they take, etc. - and the only factors outside of your control are the external players. To me 'simulation' implies factors that are more outside your 'control' as a leader and all the Civ games have been the same in that regard. What made Civ 4 more of a 'simulation game' to you?

 

[pokiehl]

I think, with political correctness, they meant The Choices for Civs (primarily Leaders)/Barbarians in Civ VI rather than the Gameplay Mechanisms

Maybe but like I said above, that interpretation makes one wonder what they meant about "history simulator" - simulation is specifically a style of gameplay, and whether you have Catherine de Medici or Napoleon for France wouldn't really affect that.

I don't really see that at all tbh. They are both basically board games imho - Civ 4 is closer to the style of the Avalon Hill strategy games that were popular in that era (including the 'Civilization' board game Sid Meier swears wasn't an influence), and Civ 6 is closer to the 'EuroGame' style of game that is popular now. In both you have entire "god-like" control of your empire - where people settle, what they research, what they build, what policies they take, etc. - and the only factors outside of your control are the external players. To me 'simulation' implies factors that are more outside your 'control' as a leader and all the Civ games have been the same in that regard. What made Civ 4 more of a 'simulation game' to you?

I agree with this as well. If we're talking "simulation" then I think that title really belongs more to the Paradox Grand Strategy games. They are tightly focused on specific periods of time and involve much more internal management than Civ ever has. Every single Civ-style 4X is inherently more casual or "arcadey" than these games. I've never viewed any Civ game as a simulation.

 

[Gedemon]

I don't really see that at all tbh. They are both basically board games imho - Civ 4 is closer to the style of the Avalon Hill strategy games that were popular in that era (including the 'Civilization' board game Sid Meier swears wasn't an influence), and Civ 6 is closer to the 'EuroGame' style of game that is popular now. In both you have entire "god-like" control of your empire - where people settle, what they research, what they build, what policies they take, etc. - and the only factors outside of your control are the external players. To me 'simulation' implies factors that are more outside your 'control' as a leader and all the Civ games have been the same in that regard. What made Civ 4 more of a 'simulation game' to you?

It's not mathematical, but a matter of immersion.

Civ4 gave me the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, being a part of (alternate) History, Civ5 and Civ6 didn't. Civ5 was a bit better on that side after the 2nd expansion.

Maybe another example, take Chess and Risk. None are "simulation" by your rules, but one give the opportunity to conquer the world, not simply a board.

 

[pokiehl]

It's not mathematical, but a matter of immersion.

Civ4 gave me the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, being a part of (alternate) History, Civ5 and Civ6 didn't. Civ5 was a bit better on that side after the 2nd expansion.

Maybe another example, take Chess and Risk. None are "simulation" by your rules, but one give the opportunity to conquer the world, not simply a board.

Well in a sense of comparison, yeah, more aspects of Civ 6 feel "gamey" than in Civ 5 and Civ 4. I, like you, would prefer if the feeling of the gameplay in 7 veers back towards that direction. I guess we can just agree to disagree on terminology though, because I don't consider Civ 4 or 5 or 3 or 2 or 1 to be history simulators at all. And again, to circle back to the original reason I made the first post, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with political correctness but I know you weren't commenting on that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm going to be honest here--I have a feeling that people that use "like a boardgame" as a derogatory phrase probably aren't playing the right types of board games.

Personally I don't feel as if the current game is any more or less "gamey" than previous, other than many more mechanics.

 

[bbbt]

It's not mathematical, but a matter of immersion.

Civ4 gave me the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, being a part of (alternate) History, Civ5 and Civ6 didn't. Civ5 was a bit better on that side after the 2nd expansion.

Maybe another example, take Chess and Risk. None are "simulation" by your rules, but one give the opportunity to conquer the world, not simply a board.

I see. I interpreted 'simulation' in terms of the game genre, and looking at the specific of the game mechanics. You are talking almost more of 'atmosphere', that Civ 4 did a better job camouflaging it's game mechanics so to speak, while Civ 6 it's more apparent that you are playing a game.

I think the utter lack of any realistic economic system, trading system, growth system in any iteration of Civ has always been a big immersion breaker for me. And I actually find the policy trees/policy cards as better camouflage than the 'slider' of the early games.

From a map POV, I can definitely see how Civ 5 and Civ 6 have gotten more immersion-breaking. I very much like district and wonder placement rules as a game mechanic, but they throw the whole thing widely out of scale. I.e. the Hermitage, a museum in the city of center of St. Petersburg, is actually outside the city center, somehow bigger than the city center, but also the same size as Ruhr Valley, an entire area encompassing multiple cities.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I see. I interpreted 'simulation' in terms of the game genre, and looking at the specific of the game mechanics. You are talking almost more of 'atmosphere', that Civ 4 did a better job camouflaging it's game mechanics so to speak, while Civ 6 it's more apparent that you are playing a game.

Really, though? There are pages and pages in the Civ 4 forums on how to game production overflow with you citizens, for example.

 

[DWilson]

Do we think the inclusion of strategic resources in trade routes, ala BE:RT, would be a good inclusion to improve the feel of the trading system?

 

[Gedemon]

I'm going to be honest here--I have a feeling that people that use "like a boardgame" as a derogatory phrase probably aren't playing the right types of board games.

Personally I don't feel as if the current game is any more or less "gamey" than previous, other than many more mechanics.

I like board game, I just don't want Civ to feel like one, and Civ6 is completely assuming its identity, from the (oversized) graphisms to the gameplay design, it's a board game, and surely a good one, but not what I want to play on my computer.

 

[Zegangani]

I'm still undecided whether I would like Civ VI to end or to get some more DLCs/Expansion.

If Civ VI ends, that could mean that:
- The Devs could finally release the DLL, so modders can mod the Game at their Hearts content,
- a Release of the NFP SDK Assets,
- They might give us a proper Documentation for Modding Civ VI/Lua API...etc,
- And if nothing else/or at least, Modders can finally Mod whatever is possible without fearing the Game will get an Update that would break their Mods.

But Another Season of DLCs would mean:
- maybe Good and Realistic Content,
- more Bug Fixes, Balance tweaks and small AI improvements (many of small imrovements could really change AI for the better).
- more Modding Capabilities for Modders.

Both would be good, but if they're really planning to release the DLL, I would prefer Civ VI ends right now. I would also go for this if we get just the Lua API (and maybe some more lua options if there aren't many that we're not aware of yet).
The Game is good, that's for sure, but it has so much Potential, that it's just sad that the Devs didn't bring/squeeze out more from it. Now It's Time for Modders to take the Wheel and tackle that Task.

 

[pokiehl]

“Appeals to modding” are, to me, the weakest argument in favor of convincing the devs to do anything. I’d much rather have official content than modded content any time. It’s also unclear to me on why you might think that the cessation of development means anything for modding (the dlls to Civ 4 and 5 were released well before the development cycles for those games were finished).

Finally, I don’t much care that NFP had realistic or unrealistic content. I just want it to be good.