Will rise and fall fix major issues? I have my doubts.

[pietro1990]

So, after play civ 6 for a year I have my doubts that rise and fall will be great and if I should put money in it. I just finished a game of civ 6 and I have really high doubts that they will fix all these major issues in the expansion pack. Witch issues? Let me explain.

Diplomacy

In my last game I’ve had the AI declare war at least 5 times at me even though they are friendly at me because of the joint war. AI will trade joint wars constantly regardless relationship or military strength. I’ve had sythia declare war on me with horseman while I have infantry. Civs who on the other side of the map declare war on me for a joint war. It doesn’t make any sense.

And finally the warmongers penalties Even declaring a formal war at the medieval era causes people denounce you the penalty is way to high. The causic bellic system comes way to late to make any differences. The protective war should come much earlier so you don’t get denounced for protecting a city state.. The holy war should come earlier like in the medieval era where most holy wars are fought
This whole mechanic of causic bellic’s is just bad game mechanics. In civ 5 you had a penalty for taking cities instead of declaring war witch made the Ai behave normal and rationally. The world hated atilla the hun because he annexed 50% of the world makes sense… in civ 6 the world hates you for declaring 1 war.


Then there are those silly agenda’s AI getting angry at you and denouncing you because you have for example not enough faith but then after a few turns later the AI is happy because you increased faith few turns later he hates you and so on… There isn’t consistency there .


The unit upgrade path and tech tree

But this one frustrates me the most. I can accept the wacky diplomacy and the war game if the AI at least tries to put up a decent fight and upgrade or built up to date units. I can understand you don’t have the resource to upgrade you’re units but there are units that don’t require resources that are modern like infantry artillery and so on…

It seems like the AI ignores modern or industrial era units and goes straight to chemistry and mechanized infantry. witch results them in having corpses of crossbowman ,horseman and so on. They forget that there are cannons, infantry in the tech tree witch they can upgrade to…

This is really frustrating that the Ai doesn’t know how to tech its just go straight to certain techs and ignores the rest. I’ve never seen a enemy tank or infantry in this game there is Cleary something wrong. I’ve had Ai who have oil but don’t built tanks.

And finally the Ai doesn’t know how to fight it doesn’t know how to take cities its frustrating.
But It isn’t the Ai fault it’s the weird tech tree path and the massive gabs inside it you can basically ignore 50% of the techs in a era to go straight to another era without any problem Why is this?


Lets talk about the positive

The game mechanics except the tech tree look really balanced and really interesting. If they fix the diplomacy and AI unit upgrading and war then it will be a great game.
This got to be the best civ game in mechanics a master puzzle game with lots of decisions but a bad AI and upgrade path destroys the game.

Will rise and fall fix all these major issues? I have my doubts because the developers don't seem to notice these are problems. Am i the only one who thinxs these are problems?

 

[Duuk]

I opened this thread assuming it would be a terrible rant, but I actually agree with you on diplomacy.

Especially with regards to Causus Belli and warmonger, they're a hot mess. Luckily, it does appear those have been reworked.

 

[Ogro]

What about espionage systems and air units/combat mechanics?

 

[kaspergm]

I agree that there's something fundamentally broken about the joint war feature. AI will uncritically accept pretty much any joint war offer - from you, or from another AI player - against any player, as long as they qualify (i.e. are not allied). This not only destroys immersion, it also completely screws up relationships throughout the game. I could accept joint wars if they could only come when both civs actually qualify for formal war (i.e. have denounced/have been denounced by you). This would not only limit the amount of meaningless joint wars (i.e. AI declares a joint war, does nothing for 10 turns, and then hands you money or luxes in compensation), it would also make games more predictable and put some value into forming positive relationships.

One thing that RnF WILL hopefully fix is the AI's tendency for absurd forward settling (or should I say: Behind settling), where they'll take a settler all the way across the map and then plop it down in some absurd position on the opposite site of your empire compared to their capital, and right next to your borders. Unless AI gets so many bonuses to their loyalty that it renders the whole system meaningless, this should at least be a thing of the past.

 

[Duuk]

...I'll see your "as long as they're not allied" and raise you a "check my save in the bug forum".

Victoria and I wound up declaring friendship at the same moment she accepted a joint war against me. I proposed an alliance afterwards for the giggles.

We were allied AND at war.

 

[pietro1990]

I opened this thread assuming it would be a terrible rant, but I actually agree with you on diplomacy.

Especially with regards to Causus Belli and warmonger, they're a hot mess. Luckily, it does appear those have been reworked.

It isn't a rant i like the game more then civ 5 but it has some major issues that needed to be fixed .

Why do you thinx the warmonger penalty has been reworked? i thinx it still has issues espeically the causic bellic that come way to late. or you mean that they moved it in rise and fall?

What about espionage systems and air units/combat mechanics?

Espionage is fine i thinx its bettern then civ 5 you actually need to invest hammers in to it if you want it. And there is olso a higher change of faillure like in civ 5 most of the time you the AI or you will suceed in steeling technologies especially the AI

To be honest i didn't built a lot of airplanes so maybe you are right it needs to be changed appears not to be that strong

 

[Jackanape]

Allied AND at war??

Sounds like my marriage.

Seriously, though, the air units need a good looking at. When a single mustang can wipe out a level 3 battleship fleet in one single pass, there's an issue on both ends...

or maybe even something as simple as the alert function?

I'd love to think it's all better come the 8th, but there's so much minutiae that I have to wonder. I'll still be there to check it out on that magic day, though...

 

[pietro1990]

I agree that there's something fundamentally broken about the joint war feature. AI will uncritically accept pretty much any joint war offer - from you, or from another AI player - against any player, as long as they qualify (i.e. are not allied). This not only destroys immersion, it also completely screws up relationships throughout the game. I could accept joint wars if they could only come when both civs actually qualify for formal war (i.e. have denounced/have been denounced by you). This would not only limit the amount of meaningless joint wars (i.e. AI declares a joint war, does nothing for 10 turns, and then hands you money or luxes in compensation), it would also make games more predictable and put some value into forming positive relationships.

One thing that RnF WILL hopefully fix is the AI's tendency for absurd forward settling (or should I say: Behind settling), where they'll take a settler all the way across the map and then plop it down in some absurd position on the opposite site of your empire compared to their capital, and right next to your borders. Unless AI gets so many bonuses to their loyalty that it renders the whole system meaningless, this should at least be a thing of the past.

Yep the formal war is really a issue i've had the Ai declare war 5 times through a formal war and then asked for a decleration of friendship i was like aren't you the guy who declared war 5 times on me?

Olso the Ai doesn't take into account military strenght. Or their calcuation is really wierd. because i've had ghandi with zero units because i liberated him(return from the death) declare a formal war against me

and i've had this happen:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-doesnt-take-into-account-military-strenght.626736/

The Ai seems to calculate 10 units of warriors is a stronger army then 1 infantry because 10> 1

 

[leandrombraz]

Anyone who expect the expansion to be some kind of magical fix will be disappointed. The expansion will bring some changes and hopefully add more fun to the experience but it won't fix Civ VI fundamental issues, not more than a patch would do. You can expect some improvements, another step towards the game we hope it will be but it will be no miracle and it certainly will add new issues to overcome. I'm looking forward for the expansion and already saw a lot of good changes but I'm not delusional about the potential it have to fix what need to be fixed.


With that said, some Casus Belli will come earlier (I don't remember which ones) and there's a new early Casus Belli for Broken promises in early game, so the system will be a bit better.

 

[pietro1990]

Anyone who expect the expansion to be some kind of magical fix will be disappointed. The expansion will bring some changes and hopefully add more fun to the experience but it won't fix Civ VI fundamental issues, not more than a patch would do. You can expect some improvements, another step towards the game we hope it will be but it will be no miracle and it certainly will add new issues to overcome. I'm looking forward for the expansion and already saw a lot of good changes but I'm not delusional about the potential it have to fix what need to be fixed.


With that said, some Casus Belli will come earlier (I don't remember which ones) and there's a new early Casus Belli for Broken promises in early game, so the system will be a bit better.

Where did you get that they changed casus belli? in the livestream ? wtih rise and fall

 

[leandrombraz]

Where did you get that they changed casus belli? in the livestream ? wtih rise and fall

You can see in the R&F Civics tree. There's a new one in Early Empire (War of Retribution, for broken promises), two where moved from Diplomatic Service to Defensive Tactics (we know which ones but I don't remember now), two still in Diplomatic Service, Colonial War still in Nationalism and Territorial expansion in Mobilization and there's a new one in Ideology but we don't know what it does.

 

[pietro1990]

You can see in the R&F Civics tree. There's a new one in Early Empire (War of Retribution, for broken promises), two where moved from Diplomatic Service to Defensive Tactics (we know which ones but I don't remember now), two still in Diplomatic Service, Colonial War still in Nationalism and Territorial expansion in Mobilization and there's a new one in Ideology but we don't know what it does.

Well that fix the warmonger penalty i thinx if you have more causic bellic.

so the only problem there is are the units but maybe they will ad new units to the game.

 

[Kyro]

I have strong doubts that:

1: Warmongering is going to be less profitable.

2: Peace play is going to be buffed

3: Wonders are going to be stronger

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Anyone who expect the expansion to be some kind of magical fix will be disappointed. The expansion will bring some changes and hopefully add more fun to the experience but it won't fix Civ VI fundamental issues, not more than a patch would do. You can expect some improvements, another step towards the game we hope it will be but it will be no miracle and it certainly will add new issues to overcome. I'm looking forward for the expansion and already saw a lot of good changes but I'm not delusional about the potential it have to fix what need to be fixed.


With that said, some Casus Belli will come earlier (I don't remember which ones) and there's a new early Casus Belli for Broken promises in early game, so the system will be a bit better.

That will be disappointing and I'm not sure I'll buy the expansion if that's the case. I certainly don't think it's unreasonable that they at least attempt to fix some of the fundamental problems with the game especially the most complained about features like diplomacy, trade, and AI combat. The release date is a lot earlier than I expected so I understand if they can't address all of it, but I would like to see some solid improvement on some of this stuff (definitely beyond what the minimal changes offered in previous patches some of which have arguably made things worse). I haven't played the game in awhile now because of this stuff and I was hoping to to dive back into it with the expansion but it probably won't hold my interest long if they haven't worked on some of the critical flaws.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

That will be disappointing and I'm not sure I'll buy the expansion if that's the case. I certainly don't think it's unreasonable that they at least attempt to fix some of the fundamental problems with the game especially the most complained about features like diplomacy, trade, and AI combat. The release date is a lot earlier than I expected so I understand if they can't address all of it, but I would like to see some solid improvement on some of this stuff (definitely beyond what the minimal changes offered in previous patches some of which have arguably made things worse). I haven't played the game in awhile now because of this stuff and I was hoping to to dive back into it with the expansion but it probably won't hold my interest long if they haven't worked on some of the critical flaws.

I think you will see some traction on all the 'issues', but, as was mentioned, don't expect this to be significantly greater tweaks/changes than the normal patch cycle would have offered.

 

[empresskiova]

I have strong doubts that:

1: Warmongering is going to be less profitable.

2: Peace play is going to be buffed

3: Wonders are going to be stronger

In all fairness Kyro, how would you fix the overall profitability of war without doing stupid things like increasing tech costs per city?

You can’t blame the AI for just how strong Warring is, as it’s a major thing in MP as well (hell, its probably the main thing lol).

The nature of 4X games is the snowball effect. I think that by trying to reduce the overall effect of snowballing (Emergencies), that might help the game.

 

[omega4]

All I'm looking for is Firaxis to fix the AI so that it builds units as basic as aircraft and uses them. That and fixing the unit sounds clipping in and out.

I can't believe neither basic bugs have been fixed yet in Civ6.

And please don't bother rationalizing why neither issue has been fixed yet. I'm one of a few gamers left who believe in holding developers/publishers to a higher standard (i.e. I'm not on the take from them and getting free stuff).

 

[Kyro]

In all fairness Kyro, how would you fix the overall profitability of war without doing stupid things like increasing tech costs per city?

You can’t blame the AI for just how strong Warring is, as it’s a major thing in MP as well (hell, its probably the main thing lol).

The nature of 4X games is the snowball effect. I think that by trying to reduce the overall effect of snowballing (Emergencies), that might help the game.

I don't actually blame the AI because I know the difficulty in improving their quality. I have however mentioned the solution several times before, it's not that difficult really. Before I touch on that though, your issue with increasing tech costs per city touches on a larger problem so I'll touch on that first because it is related.

I agree that increasing tech/civic costs per city you found is a very forced way to limit city numbers, but beyond that is the issue of whether the number of cities a player can have should even be limited in the first place.

First off, as a side effect if we do limit the number of cities some way, the profitability of warmongering is immediately culled because a hard limit implies that additional cities you conquer do not directly contribute to snowballing, as seen from Civ 5's case.
I will argue that ICS (Infinite City Spam) should not be easy to do in Civ 6 without consequences because it results in one inevitable flaw: Quantity drowns out any advantage of Quality and any good decision you make regarding Infrastructure Investment, City/District placement becomes very insignificant in the face of sheer numbers. This also happens to be the reason why Wonders seem weak in Civ 6. (If you do limit cities, several Wonders would suddenly become valuable.)

This is directly linked to the profitability of warmongering because it is the fastest way to gain sheer quantity, especially on higher levels when you can take advantage of AI's 80% production boosts to churn out those infinite cities for you.

As such, building on the guaranteed value of additional cities without any drawback whatsoever, is the fact that every city you conquer functions exactly like your own with no penalties at all. This is when the AI comes in to worsen the problem because they are so bad at war they basically give a player who knows how to exploit their weaknesses the key to the treasury of cities. In addition, warmongering "penalties" do nothing to actually penalize the very thing that is causing players to snowball which is additional yields from free cities.

Thus, having explained what makes warmongering so profitable, the most obvious solution is to directly target what causes it to be profitable in the first place.

1: The most obvious solution is to limit ICS such that there is actually a price for doing so. Sadly, the loyalty system in R&F doesn't seem to limit number of cities in any way. There needs to be administrative costs and loyalty issues in line with reality that prevents real world nations from just expanding without limit. I understand this may not be a popular opinion but the truth is you can't have meaningful decisions for individual cities that represent the Civilization when sheer quantity means much more.

2: Wartime destruction, famine are very real issues that affects cities being conquered. Napoleon himself lost to Russia because they razed their own cities to the ground to deny the enemy. This could be represented in the game by the destruction of all districts in the city and not just the city center.

3: Conquered cities most certainly do not behave like your own people. They hate you for conquering them and they are prone to rebellion. Again R&F doesn't seem to show this because captured cities suddenly start exerting loyalty instead of rebellion for your civilization. This can be implemented by penalizing yields from conquered cities for the rest of the game. AI should also refuse to cede cities to the Player and those cities retain occupied status for the rest of the game.

When you destroy a Civilization you are eliminating competition altogether and that should be its only reward, not free cities and free population.

 

[Thormodr]

"This can be implemented by penalizing yields from conquered cities for the rest of the game."

Too harsh and definitely not historical.

Does Santa Fe, New Mexico continue to have reduced yields to this day because it was conquered by the Americans from the Mexicans?

Does Istanbul continue to have reduced yields to this day because it was conquered by the Turks from the Byzantines?

Yields should definitely be penalized for a period of time and your Civ should definitely have to win them over.

 

[Kyro]

"This can be implemented by penalizing yields from conquered cities for the rest of the game."

Too harsh and definitely not historical.

Does Santa Fe, New Mexico continue to have reduced yields to this day because it was conquered by the Americans from the Mexicans?

Does Istanbul continue to have reduced yields to this day because it was conquered by the Turks from the Byzantines?

Yields should definitely be penalized for a period of time and your Civ should definitely have to win them over.

Well if there was a solution in line with historicity I'm all for it but I assure you that price is not harsh at all.

A city functioning at 75% yield capacity taken from the AI still beats building one yourself in the same time frame. In fact, as things are even if we are to penalize it to 50% warmongering will still be the supreme strategy. That's how profitable it is and the harshness of the penalty is done in proportion to the benefit assured.