Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

Angst said:
Doesn't the game end in like 2050? Some of the worse projections make it very much a part of our timeline then, and desertification and extreme weather and such already began in the 2010s.
Click to expand...

The stated year doesn't even matter, as tech progress can happen much faster in game. Space victory can be won way before the 20th century, and we are not even that close to it IRL. So by the 19th century or something, emissions can plausibly exceed today's standards IRL.
 
drewisfat said:
No it doesn't. Not only do the vast majority of games end well before 2050, but if a mechanic's effects only matter at the very end it's best left ignored in all cases. Not to mention it still wouldn't lead to interesting choices even if the timeline were 2150, because as mentioned, why would I sacrifice something on my end to help *everyone* in a FFA game? Only thing I can see happening is the exact opposite: some tundraball nation trolling the world by going out of their way to hasten global warming, which would probably benefit them given whatever simplistic representation is used in the game.
Where on earth has desertification already occurred to such a large extent you could say it represents a tile in civ?
Click to expand...
The problem is you're conflating realism with game mechanics. Why? Basically no other part of Civ adheres to realism in terms of how a game plays out, so why's climate change your sticking point?

You can act out a game of Civ historically in much the same way you can do your best to affect climate change in a historically-realistic manner (in Civ). The fact that this often doesn't happen doesn't mean that it's not possible, and shouldn't be an argument against its inclusion much like "but Cleopatra is dead, actually" isn't an argument against hers.
 
drewisfat said:
Be more specific on drylands. Where do I take a tile off the map?
Click to expand...

I think, in terms of Civ 4 terrain at least, this would be like plains --> desert.

The real problem with representing climate change in Civ terms is that so much of the human effects of climate change are actually because of changes in precipiation, and precipitation plays no real role in the Civ game world, despite the amount of precipitation being at least as important as temperature in defining real-world climates.

drewisfat said:
No it doesn't. Not only do the vast majority of games end well before 2050, but if a mechanic's effects only matter at the very end it's best left ignored in all cases. Not to mention it still wouldn't lead to interesting choices even if the timeline were 2150, because as mentioned, why would I sacrifice something on my end to help *everyone* in a FFA game? Only thing I can see happening is the exact opposite: some tundraball nation trolling the world by going out of their way to hasten global warming, which would probably benefit them given whatever simplistic representation is used in the game.
Click to expand...

I also think that this is pretty much correct, but that's no reason not to have global warming as it adds a dimension of challenge since of course everyone is just going to selfishly develop and cause the amount of resources available to everyone to degrade.

There should probably be an option to switch global warming on or off when starting a game.
 
Joij21 said:
What about the real life Montezuma?:think:
Click to expand...
AmazonQueen said:
Not sure. Aztec history isn't something I'm up on and I can never remember which of the Montezumas the one in Civ VI is.
Click to expand...
Based on his standard warmongering personality, he's probably supposed to be Moctezuma I, but I think they leave it deliberately vague because the one everyone has heard of was Moctezuma II.

Lexicus said:
Eccentric? It is "meta" play in Civ 4 to annihilate rival civilizations entirely so that you don't get unhappiness from "we want to join our motherland" or, worse, revolts in border cities attempting to flip back to their rightful owner.
Click to expand...
I think this is literalising the culture mechanic a bit. In game terms, it functions as a representation of the influence of a given state and the loyalty of the population to those states. It's framed as "culture" because that sounds... Civilization-y, because it gives it a gloss of long-term historical process rather than of the sort of purely political loyalties you might see modelled in a game (or for that matter, mod) with a more compressed timescale.
 
Last edited:
drewisfat said:
No it doesn't. Not only do the vast majority of games end well before 2050
Click to expand...

ours maybe, some players do have games that go up to 300, 400 or even 500 turns (not kidding) on standard speed. they just like building stuff.

drewisfat said:
as mentioned, why would I sacrifice something on my end to help *everyone* in a FFA game?
Click to expand...

this is your main point and it is a strong one. You are indeed correct that in the framework of an FFA game there is only one reason to help someone else: If your gains are bigger than theirs. helping someone else in an FFA (or zero-sum game) is essentially the same has harming yourself. anything that helps your competitors even slightly in achieving their VC is actively bad for you.

my basic counterargument would be that in my mind Civ shouldn't be an FFA game, and that at least ONE VC should be mutualist or truly diplomatic, but that is an ought statement, not an is statement.

drewisfat said:
Yes and depicting global warming in the game does not make sense. A global malus does not lead to interesting decisions unless it's assymetric. In the case of global warming it's an even bigger stretch because there are no effects until the very end of the game.
Click to expand...

Would you describe the old ideology system as assymetric? Because that was a global malus (or bonus, I guess) that worked fine imho.
 
yung.carl.jung said:
Would you describe the old ideology system as assymetric? Because that was a global malus (or bonus, I guess) that worked fine imho.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it worked fine, in Civ IV there was religious blocks with good diplomacy with one another but hostile diplomacy with all other religions which don't seems to be that historical correct. Civ V probably had similar issues with ideology, countries or people don't get along just because they follow similar ideology, neither do they have to fight each other because they follow different ideologies. During WW2 neither the allies nor the axis was all that coordinated and I'm not sure they even liked each other all that much.

It seems alliances should be more about common enemies and geography rather than some major malus. For example much of europe did not like Russia in the 1800s under monarchy nor in the 1900s under communism.
 
Last edited:
Denkt said:
I'm not sure it worked fine, in Civ IV there was religious blocks with good diplomacy with one another but hostile diplomacy with all other religions which don't seems to be that historical correct. Civ V probably had similar issues with ideology, countries or people don't get along just because they follow similar ideology, neither do they have to fight each other because they follow different ideologies. During WW2 neither the allies nor the axis was all that coordinated and I'm not sure they even liked each other all that much.
Click to expand...

I don't strive for realism or historical accuracy in my games, really. I would already be happy if Civ 6 was a bit harder. If Civ 7 introduced any VC that wasn't "total Hitlerian annihilation of every other race of people by any means", or at least made Diplo, Culture or Space Victory somehow mutualist, I would be more than happy.
 
Denkt said:
I'm not sure it worked fine, in Civ IV there was religious blocks with good diplomacy with one another but hostile diplomacy with all other religions which don't seems to be that historical correct. Civ V probably had similar issues with ideology, countries or people don't get along just because they follow similar ideology, neither do they have to fight each other because they follow different ideologies.
Click to expand...

While intra-religious and intra-ideology conflicts were common in history, religious and ideological blocs did exist, and famously so. So it's oversimplified in the game, but not historically incorrect.
 
@yung.carl.jung I really only played civ 3-4, so am not familiar with ideologies. But it appears analogous to religions, so assymetric. You want to have the larger or more powerful block (maybe some consideration with neighbors as well).
Even if some people play til turn 2050, late game mechanics are just plain questionable. In civ 4 corporations are kind of widely panned for coming way too late (and they come 10-20% earlier than climate change). They needed insane bonuses to be a factor in even a minority of late games. A lot of dev work with minimal impact. Climate change has an even more uphill battle since it comes later and is more or less an even penalty (though the point about chopping all your forests to rush flood barriers out quicker! is noted).
@aelf While you can advance technologically further in the game than irl, this is matched by an expectation of winning the game even sooner. This differential is larger the better the player and the higher the difficulty level, where presumably you'd have more serious players making more serious efforts to win. So unless they also wanted to play with like 2-3x the normal amount of civs/land, it seems very unlikely that 100+ turns of climate change are going to be played out in the game unless you specifically wanted them to.

To make climate change belong in the game there's going to be multiple simultaneous efforts: to make it come earlier, to make it be worse, and to exaggerate your ability to cause/mitigate it. That can give the appearance of it being in the game out of a political agenda (though I get that it's mostly an ode to it being present in earlier iterations of the series). Climate change seems pretty unique in Civ in that it fits far more in a simulation/roleplay game than a 4x.
 
I don't feel climate change is a huge problem from the gameplay perspective. It can be pretty inconvenient when it destroys valuable real estate, and the cost of flood barriers become prohibitive the more helpful they are (especially since coastal cities tend not to be so hot on production). At the same time, it's not a huge enough detriment as to sink your chances at victory. For a civilization-building game with such an explicit teleology as a "victory condition", I feel like this is in line with the general expectation.
 
Is it a weirder thing about Civ that leaders live 6000 years, or that history is winnable?

That isn't to aelf, specifically. Just a general musing.
 
Far left, social justice warrior snowflakes get triggered and have meltdowns when they are introduced to the slightest idea or opinion they disagree with or challenge their incredibly narrow-minded, dogmatic world view.

This is why they need safe spaces, for example.
 
cloned by aliens and replaced as necessary .
 
Kyriakos said:
At least in some versions of Civ (such as Civ3), the immortal leaders get to update their clothing when the era changes.
Click to expand...
So change clothes once every millenium or so?
 
Not Civ V, I don't think

That same long zoom for Elizabeth no matter what era you interact with her. Alex riding up on his horse. No change, to my memory.

Edit: or maybe I didn't get your joke. Elizabeth changes clothes between every time I visit.her--she just changes into another version of the same outfit!
 
Last edited:
AmazonQueen said:
They are actually changing their clothes regularly in all the games. Just, like most old people , they think what they wore when they were young is still the height of fashion.
Click to expand...

But it's sad and it's sweet and I knew it complete
When I wore a younger man's clothes...
 
drewisfat said:
@yung.carl.jung I really only played civ 3-4, so am not familiar with ideologies. But it appears analogous to religions, so assymetric. You want to have the larger or more powerful block (maybe some consideration with neighbors as well).
Even if some people play til turn 2050, late game mechanics are just plain questionable. In civ 4 corporations are kind of widely panned for coming way too late (and they come 10-20% earlier than climate change). They needed insane bonuses to be a factor in even a minority of late games. A lot of dev work with minimal impact. Climate change has an even more uphill battle since it comes later and is more or less an even penalty (though the point about chopping all your forests to rush flood barriers out quicker! is noted).
Click to expand...

yes, precisely! the developers did an okay job, the problem lies in simple balancing issues. that is the most frustrating thing about Civ 6.. so many things could have been corrected with little work, but never were. instead we get paid content which no one wants (translation: content that i don't want ;)

aelf said:
I don't feel climate change is a huge problem from the gameplay perspective. It can be pretty inconvenient when it destroys valuable real estate, and the cost of flood barriers become prohibitive the more helpful they are (especially since coastal cities tend not to be so hot on production). At the same time, it's not a huge enough detriment as to sink your chances at victory. For a civilization-building game with such an explicit teleology as a "victory condition", I feel like this is in line with the general expectation.
Click to expand...

climate change is not a problem at all from the gameplay perspective. that is the problem. you say it can destroy valuable real estate, but not only does this never happen in "normal" games (which end between t150 and t250 standard), even if it does happen it only slightly damages your economy, but does it damage your win condition? I don't think so, maybe with the exception of it randomly hitting a spaceport.
 
drewisfat said:
Yes and depicting global warming in the game does not make sense. A global malus does not lead to interesting decisions unless it's assymetric. In the case of global warming it's an even bigger stretch because there are no effects until the very end of the game.
Click to expand...
The little ice age was a real thing and had an impact for several hundred years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom