What do you think of the Civ VI great people?

[Cao Cao Mengde]

I'd like the GP system of this game a lot more, if it wasn't era reliant. Although the patch has improved things, you move to Industrial era so fast that most of the great people aren't even recruited- they're just SKIPPED!

 

[kaspergm]

I'd like the GP system of this game a lot more, if it wasn't era reliant. Although the patch has improved things, you move to Industrial era so fast that most of the great people aren't even recruited- they're just SKIPPED!

I agree fully. I have only played one game on king since the patch, and things were definitely improved there - I managed to get both a medieval AND renaissance era great merchant and great engineer, which was previously impossible, but this is probably as much down to the AI's non-building of districts on the lower level as it is because of the tech tree changes. I'll see how things play out on emperor in my next game, but by this stage, it seems quite evident that the era skipping needs to be removed asap. It's find that they are grouped by era so that they come in a controlled-random order (i.e. no space ship production boost in classical era, etc.), but if players skip era quickly, they shouldn't just jump over all the intervening great people.

 

[Wulfram G.T.]

Victoria showed in another post that you can get by using only Seaside Resorts, and in most of my Culture games the bulk of my tourism comes from artifacts.

Also, you forgot an important part if your plan revolves around GP: district projects. Since the later ones can get really expensive, those are of fundamental importance to win the GP race (especially considering that the AI rarely, if ever, invest in projects).

Sure, there are many ways of achieving tourism. However, if you play Kongo, Brazil and to a lesser extent Greece (i played all the non DLC civs) and you want to play into their strengths you should go for great works. And to get the fitting artists for theming boni is more or less pure luck whereas in civ 5 you could plan such things ahead.

District projects for me come in the late game because I first want to build the districts and buildings and other stuff. But the great person pool is often beginning to dry out at about the time my infrastructure i wanted is up. I speak about emperor and immortal here. On King it's actually really easy to get ahead of the AI, the difference to Emperor is huge.

I do not know for sure but i think the AI buys many GP's with gold and faith since they have loads of the two.

I haven't played the last days, actually, don't know about patch changes.

 

[darkace77450]

Is it just me, or has this last patch affected the AI's ability and/or willingness to build districts and, by extension, generate Great People?

 

[Kyro]

I'd like the GP system of this game a lot more, if it wasn't era reliant. Although the patch has improved things, you move to Industrial era so fast that most of the great people aren't even recruited- they're just SKIPPED!

Exactly my point of view. I find myself intentionally slowing down tech snd civic just so I don't proceed to the next era and skip the great person I'm waiting for altogether. This is ridiculous.

The rarity of Great Musicians/Artists is entirely due to this.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Actually, the only order is the era they come from. For example, in all games you'll find Sagan, Kwolek and Abdul Salam as the 3 Great Scientists from the Information Age, but the order they appear is quite random. I've seen all 3 come first in a game or another.

If we're talking about a pool of GP, in my opinion they should still be separated by era. For example, 5 Great Engineers in the Industrial Era, from which 3 could be recruited, at the choice of the current recruiter. It doesn't make sense to recruit Sagan way back in the Ancient Era.

Another problem about tying GP to governments is the same that occurs with some policies: some won't be recruited at all. I'd never, for example, recruit a GP that enhances Monarchy, unless it was something in the order of 2 extra policy slots to make Monarchy OP.

It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I've had 3 MP games recently that reached that far and not one included Carl Sagan. Did they do something to him in the last release? Anyone else notice this?

 

[kaspergm]

I got Carl Sagan in my game yesterday. He came up as the second scientist I think. Still said 3000 production, but he "only" gave me one of the Mars parts and cut the second down to 6 turns. I used to be able to get all three in one turn from him, but maybe it's because I didn't get any of the +100 % production people in this game, which I normally do. I wonder if they stack, so that if you have first a +100 % production and then Carl Sagan it's effectively +6000 production?


On a side-note, when talking about the era skipping, what determines when the GP jump to next era? In that same game, I was the first to get a GM in Industrial era. It was the one with Toys that was up. Since everybody had rubbish GM point production, I decided to grab him and hope to get the next one also, instead of skipping (hoping to uncover Adam Smith, obviously). But the next one was from Modern era. I was only in Industrial era, and I'm 95 % certain the other 4 civs on my continent was also in Industrial or earlier. On the other continent there were two civs, and I think at least one of them might have been in Modern, but still - is it enough for one civ to have progressed for the GP to jump ahead? Because if that's the case, it's really stupid. But I'm not 100 % sure about the eras, because I couldn't find a way to see what era the others were in (I recall now it's in the bottom of the tech/civic tree? I forgot at the moment ).

 

[Kyro]

I got Carl Sagan in my game yesterday. He came up as the second scientist I think. Still said 3000 production, but he "only" gave me one of the Mars parts and cut the second down to 6 turns. I used to be able to get all three in one turn from him, but maybe it's because I didn't get any of the +100 % production people in this game, which I normally do. I wonder if they stack, so that if you have first a +100 % production and then Carl Sagan it's effectively +6000 production?


On a side-note, when talking about the era skipping, what determines when the GP jump to next era? In that same game, I was the first to get a GM in Industrial era. It was the one with Toys that was up. Since everybody had rubbish GM point production, I decided to grab him and hope to get the next one also, instead of skipping (hoping to uncover Adam Smith, obviously). But the next one was from Modern era. I was only in Industrial era, and I'm 95 % certain the other 4 civs on my continent was also in Industrial or earlier. On the other continent there were two civs, and I think at least one of them might have been in Modern, but still - is it enough for one civ to have progressed for the GP to jump ahead? Because if that's the case, it's really stupid. But I'm not 100 % sure about the eras, because I couldn't find a way to see what era the others were in (I recall now it's in the bottom of the tech/civic tree? I forgot at the moment ).

Yes Carl Sagan's +3000 Production/Sergei Korolev's + 1500 Production stacks with Stephanie Kwolek/Wernher von Braun's + 100% Production towards space projects. You can get them all and finish a space victory with enough production leftover to build multiple nukes and wonders.

To answer your question about when great people are skipped to the next era, I'm not exactly sure but there is something you can do to make sure you don't skip it. Do not progress to the next era and claim/pass a great person from the current era if you're waiting for another great person from the current era (Of the same type. Great Merchants do not affect Great Scientists etc). If you happen to be in the Modern Era and claim a Great Person from the Industrial era you immediately skip the Great Person era(Industrial) of the respective type to your current era(Modern). Which means if you really want a particular Great person from an Era, delay your progress as much as possible. This doesn't make sense I know but it's the only workaround for the poor design.

 

[kaspergm]

Which means if you really want a particular Great person from an Era, delay your progress as much as possible. This doesn't make sense I know but it's the only workaround for the poor design.

I agree, it's a lousy system, but that was exactly why I recruited the GM, instead of passing and waiting for someone else to claim him, while I (and I think most other players) were still in industrial era, because I assumed then another industrial merchant would come up. That was why I was so surprised a modern one came up next.

 

[Kyro]

I agree, it's a lousy system, but that was exactly why I recruited the GM, instead of passing and waiting for someone else to claim him, while I (and I think most other players) were still in industrial era, because I assumed then another industrial merchant would come up. That was why I was so surprised a modern one came up next.

You must have been waiting for Adam Smith and his +1 Economic Slot. Used to just restart when the eras skipped him. Now I just don't go to the industrial era even and force him to spawn.

 

[Yzman]

I don't like the generals/admirals at all. They give a bonus you don't really need, you have to attach them, move them around, then they become obsolete. I actually prefer Civ IV great generals, which I alwyas put as military instructors in cities. Also, the way they were earnt in previous games (based on combat) made more sense. It synergised with how you played. It was simple, straightforward. Now it's bland, you have to pay faith or gold to get great generals instead of actually fighting.
Great prophets are limited in number so I never use them, they and religion are very badly implemented imo.
Great scientists are abit weak, the rest are fine.
The one great person per era is just awfully bad on Deity. I never get my first great person before mid/late in the game unless I hamstring myself by focusing on it,and it's not worth it. Specialists no longer provide GPP, so the only way to get them is through wonders (waste of hammers), districts or by buying them. None of that feels funny, there's no planning involved. Give GPP from specialists, give us some means to play with the filling of the bar other than rush-buying it in the end.
Overall, I feel like they have been removed from the early game entirely unless I play badly in every other domain in order to get them, and they only serve the purpose of getting better in those domains I'd have to neglect.

I don't quite understand your complaint. You make it sound like you always buy your great people...do you really? And how are you doing that? They are insanely expensive most of the time. And you get the GPP by building districts, as you say, which is an integral part of the game. Good luck beating the game without building any districts. For artists and writers, they are literally useless if you don't have the districts anyway. Merchants, I would bet you are building those districts everywhere anyway, and science...maybe your strategy doesn't revolve around building campuses, but as you say, the great scientists aren't the strongest anyways. I personally always build lots of science though.

And if I remember correctly, in the previous games, specialists were in specific buildings. So if you have those buildings in Civ6, that means you are generating the GPP is basically the same fashion as you did previously, but not taking up a citizen slot.

 

[Yzman]

You must have been waiting for Adam Smith and his +1 Economic Slot. Used to just restart when the eras skipped him. Now I just don't go to the industrial era even and force him to spawn.

I didn't realize people based their whole strategies on one great person.

Not knocking your play style, but I am very glad I don't play like that. Seems like that would take a lot of enjoyment out of the game for me. I don't tend to do the whole min/max thing.

 

[Kyro]

I didn't realize people based their whole strategies on one great person.

Not knocking your play style, but I am very glad I don't play like that. Seems like that would take a lot of enjoyment out of the game for me. I don't tend to do the whole min/max thing.

I get what you mean. Is that great person That crucial for winning? No. Can you win without him? Easily even. But that +1 Economic Slot is lost forever if he doesn't show up and my Civilization won't be as great as it can be so the game for me then has already ended. It's not a strategy for winning but a strategy to create maximum potential in a Civilization to scale with time.

 

[LDiCesare]

I don't quite understand your complaint. You make it sound like you always buy your great people...do you really? And how are you doing that? They are insanely expensive most of the time. And you get the GPP by building districts, as you say, which is an integral part of the game. Good luck beating the game without building any districts. For artists and writers, they are literally useless if you don't have the districts anyway. Merchants, I would bet you are building those districts everywhere anyway, and science...maybe your strategy doesn't revolve around building campuses, but as you say, the great scientists aren't the strongest anyways. I personally always build lots of science though.

And if I remember correctly, in the previous games, specialists were in specific buildings. So if you have those buildings in Civ6, that means you are generating the GPP is basically the same fashion as you did previously, but not taking up a citizen slot.

I never buy great people. I don't know why you thought that. It's simply that eras advance so fast that it's impossible to get early great people because the pace at which eras change throiugh research is faster than the pace at which you gain GPP through districts. You may use projects, but in the ancient era, you're much better off building a military and settlers, so while you do that, your GPP creep but your science increases and soon enough you've runt into the next era and don't see any great people before the renaissance.
Districts don't give enough GPP in the early game. Once you have (lots of) big cities with enough pop to have lots of districts, hence several of the same type, you start getting GPP. But before? Nope. Compare to Civ IV where GPP were per city, so playing with a few cities didn't hamper you wrt getting GPP. In VI, it does, and that also means early game, when you have few cities, you get less GPP and less great people than in the late game.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I enjoy the system, I think it's a lot more interesting than previous ways of getting Great People, though I do feel its currently set up so they're a bit too rare. You could get a number of Great Scientists in the double digits per playthrough in previous games, which is comparable to the amount of Great Scientists recruited in total by all civilizations in a playthrough in this game.

Other than that, I don't have any complaints. Some are better than others, and that's fine. If you end up recruiting a great person and the next one is better, I don't think that's an issue. I don't think giving a player a tough decision they have to make and then forcing them to bite the bullet if they make the wrong call is bad game design, so long as that bullet doesn't go off in your mouth. Sure, Adam Smith is one of the best Great People in the game (Go Capitalism!), but you hardly need him to win. Yeah, you might get the Great Scientist which gives you a boost to faith and end up loosing Isaac Newton, but you're never screwed because of that. Your play might be sub-optimal, but Civilization is a game with so many variables to consider and factors you can't know stretching back as far the first turn of the game and having to decide where to scout out that I don't think it's an issue if the game is design so it can always be played optimally.

I think this might be a reason I don't mind the lack of a reset button and others do. I always stick with the start the game gives me because I feel one of the things about Civilization is making the best out of what you're given. I can see an argument for that not being the case since you control everything your civilization does, but there are a lot of inherent trade offs and risks in the decisions you make when playing Civilization games, and not always making the best choice is fine because you can usually turn it around and manage a victory, provided you catch yourself early enough. This might not be the case with getting conquered early, but there are some things you just need to learn with Civilization games (which I think is fine, since you play them repeatedly).

One thing I read people complain about is Great Generals expiring. I actually like that, since I always kept Great Generals around forever and Civilization 5 and this incentivizes me at gunpoint to actually use their temporal affects, which I think keeps things interesting, personally. A common UI complaint I've heard is that the Great Person screen has too much wasted space, but I actually think it looks nice.

With all that being said, I do have a few complaints.

I quite dislike the fact that the Great Prophet box is empty for most of the game and are smack dab in the middle of the list. It disrupts a design I otherwise find appealing.

I don't like that progressing to a new era removes the chance of recruiting some Great People at all. I would prefer if they were arranged in a more "linear" type list, so that Great People aren't era dependent but rather a successive chain which remains constant throughout the game. Thus, if no one recruits a Great Musician until the Renaissance then the number of Great Musicians you can recruit doesn't go down any. I do like that they are "scrambled" within their "era" to add a bit more uncertainty when you look at passing on Great People and all that, again, I think an noticeable part of Civilization is making the best of situations, including ones you put yourself in without a maximum amount of information. I also wish that there were more Great People than would actually appear on that list, so there's a little more variety in what Great People show up each game. Maybe this game no one will get the chance to recruit Adam Smith. Maybe this game you'll be able to recruit both Carl Sagan and the guy who gives a production boost to Space Race projects, but they're right next to each other so you need to do crazy district projects to get both. Things could go your way or not, which, again, is something I think is conjoined with dealing with those circumstances in being a part of Civilization games.

I also have problems with cultural Great People, simply because there's no concept of focusing more on one or the other at any point. Focusing on culture is focusing on culture, and there's no differing avenues within that, like having a civilization which is renowned for writing and music versus one renowned for stocked museums or something. I don't know, I just think that would be interesting and maybe help compensate for the issues of getting theming bonuses, since you could focus on getting lots of Great Artists to fill those museums.

On that note, I would prefer if Great People were a little more plentiful and a little cheaper to recruit. Being able to get more Great People each game is something I miss about the older games. And it would help with theming Art Museums.

 

[Kyro]

@AnonymousSpeed

I'm sorry but I'll have you disagree with you on all the things you find that are not design issues. They are design issues because they are punishing players based on luck and that is fundamentally wrong on all levels.

The misconception you have about Great People is that a player even has a fair choice when choosing to recruit or pass on great people when those decisions are actually imposed lotteries.

Tough decisions have to be fair decisions. Gambling isn't fair. You don't force players to gamble with consequences when they've done all they can to make the right decisions.

If you want to implement useless Great People then don't punish players by forcing them to gamble on whether the great person they want will show up or not if they pass. Great people are important parts of strategies, not a lottery ticket.

Non-optimal gameplay as a result of bad decisions is perfectly fine. Non-optimal gameplay as a result of factors beyond a player's reasonable realm of control is simply not acceptable.

I have to say this because opinions like these are always used to justify the status quo and are very detrimental to improving the game.

 

[Wulfram G.T.]

@AnonymousSpeed

I'm sorry but I'll have you disagree with you on all the things you find that are not design issues. They are design issues because they are punishing players based on luck and that is fundamentally wrong on all levels.

The misconception you have about Great People is that a player even has a fair choice when choosing to recruit or pass on great people when those decisions are actually imposed lotteries.

Tough decisions have to be fair decisions. Gambling isn't fair. You don't force players to gamble with consequences when they've done all they can to make the right decisions.

If you want to implement useless Great People then don't punish players by forcing them to gamble on whether the great person they want will show up or not if they pass. Great people are important parts of strategies, not a lottery ticket.

Non-optimal gameplay as a result of bad decisions is perfectly fine. Non-optimal gameplay as a result of factors beyond a player's reasonable realm of control is simply not acceptable.

I have to say this because opinions like these are always used to justify the status quo and are very detrimental to improving the game.

I agree so much for that. The start is luck and your task in each game is dealing with your start position as good as possible. After that, there should be as few luck as possible. It's a strategy game after all. That's why I also disable goodie huts.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Like luck isn't part of life LOL

 

[darkace77450]

@AnonymousSpeed

I'm sorry but I'll have you disagree with you on all the things you find that are not design issues. They are design issues because they are punishing players based on luck and that is fundamentally wrong on all levels.

The misconception you have about Great People is that a player even has a fair choice when choosing to recruit or pass on great people when those decisions are actually imposed lotteries.

Tough decisions have to be fair decisions. Gambling isn't fair. You don't force players to gamble with consequences when they've done all they can to make the right decisions.

If you want to implement useless Great People then don't punish players by forcing them to gamble on whether the great person they want will show up or not if they pass. Great people are important parts of strategies, not a lottery ticket.

Non-optimal gameplay as a result of bad decisions is perfectly fine. Non-optimal gameplay as a result of factors beyond a player's reasonable realm of control is simply not acceptable.

I have to say this because opinions like these are always used to justify the status quo and are very detrimental to improving the game.

Your starting terrain, your AI and city-state neighbors, barbarian spawn proximity, tribal village rewards, natural wonder locations, and AI behavior are all rolls of the dice that add to - not detract - from the game. Even something as basic as choosing which direction to send your Scout is a roll of the dice whose outcome might mean the difference between triggering the eureka for Astrology and inspiration for Foreign Trade or fully grinding them out. Randomly determined variables prevent the game from becoming a rote. It's bad game is designed in such a way that rewards players for always doing X, then Y, then Z in that exact order. That, too, reduces decisions.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I have to say this because opinions like these are always used to justify the status quo and are very detrimental to improving the game.

I feel the need to say that I am not apposed to improving the game. My first post even outlined changes that I would like to see made to the Great Person system. Yes, I am defending an existent system, but I'm doing so because its an existent system, I'm doing so because I think the aspects of that system I'm defending are fine. It's just that I like a certain system and you don't like that system, so the "improvements" you'd make and the "improvements" I'd make are going to be different and we'd prefer different things left be or changed.

However, I also don't mean to put words in your mouth, so forgive me if I have misconstrued your meaning.

Now, I understand if people don't like the Great People system and think its too out of the players control. I understand the desire for, in a game, things to be consistent reliable, and for a specific strategy to always work for you. However, I feel that in Civilization games that having wrenches in your plans throughout the game keeps things more interesting. I also understand if people think that passing on Great People versus choosing which way to explore are different, because they are.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't call Great People in Civ6 a "luck based system." It's a shot in the dark, I'll give you that, and in that regard there is an element of chance to it, but the player is also able to assess the risks in these "shots in the dark" and then choose which shot to take. You can look at a Great Person and determine how valuable their effects are to you before you make that choice. If it's an affect you want, you can take it. If it's one you don't, you can skip it. If it's a more middling effect, you might end up with something better or worse, but there is, again, weighing your decision to see if you want a benefit you know or one which could fall to either end of the quality spectrum. I personally find that an interesting dilemma for the player to have.

I think there are other aspects of the game like that which you can find throughout, and not just in Civ6. Late game strategic resources aren't something you can see right away, you don't know where they're going to be until you discover the appropriate technology. Some players will go ahead and found cities in deserts because they expect oil will be there, they weigh the likelihood of that versus the investment in the settler and building up that city and decide that the chance is good enough to go ahead and settle there. Other players won't settle a desert unless they do know such resources are there and wait until they have the appropriate technology and know it isn't their borders before they settle their desert city.

In both of these cases, a player is able to assess whether they want to perform a more risky action which could end up working out better and another where they know what they're getting. They aren't perfect analogs, certainly. Still, I think the player can accumulate enough knowledge in both circumstances (knowing what Great People are for each era compared to knowing the spawning pattern of strategic resources) to make these into interesting decisions.

But hey, that's just me.