7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[reddishrecue]

Using relatively-rare Influence to buy IP/City State 'mercenary' units isn't a bad mechanic, because it keeps some Human player from buying his entire army with Gold, and unless you are playing Carthage that wouldn't be any more accurate (or fun) than having no mercenary units at all.

One 'extra' that might be added to Carthage's arsenal might be the ability to buy units from any City State with Gold, not just those that 'belong' to Carthage. That would give Carthage - and only Carthage - the potential to field an almost entirely mercenary army.

Wouldn't that make it too powerful? Those Numidian Cavalries are already good I think.

 

[Pedro P]

The issues and misunderstandings that led to this poor reception have literally happened multiple times over other strategy games.

Not understanding multiplayer highly competitive gamers are a minority of a minority, but treating them like experts and the only ones who can play the game properly and balancing and focusing on features entirely towards this level of play without concern for how the casual single player who makes the majority of the buyer base will interact with such features.

Also minimalism, the idea that fluff and side content has to be cut or reduced, that things need to always be faster and direct and controlled. Truth is, players are messy, and sometimes the idea something is there matters more than its purpose and utility. Maybe the majority of them don't finish games, but if they liked it that way, was it an issue? The idea of a fully finished perfect long campaign that rarely happens has more value than a streamlined easy to finish but ultimately sterile campaign, even if both are poorly design, at least one leaves the player wanting more.

It's something Paradox has recently learned, for example, after a long time trying actions that should give good results, but only getting bad results in turn.

 

[kaspergm]

Maybe the majority of them don't finish games, but if they liked it that way, was it an issue?

Well the thing is, fact is that it was a very widespread complaint about Civ6 that late game was boring as hell. So yes, if they liked it that way, that was fine, but that was pretty far from always the case.

 

[protocol7]

I don't think they liked the endgame being boring per se, it's just they already had a nice solution to keep the fun going - start a new game. Not sure the juice was worth the squeeze really if the cost of fixing a problem people already had a nice solution for was polarising the fanbase. I still get bored by about the mid-exploration age in civ7 and start new games around then because it's clear who is going to win, so they didn't even really fix the problem.

 

[0urBall]

Or they "fixed" the wrong problem, which was the AI is not a challenge in the late-game. Which seems to be a problem now in both CivVI and CivVII

 

[GeneralZift]

Well the thing is, fact is that it was a very widespread complaint about Civ6 that late game was boring as hell. So yes, if they liked it that way, that was fine, but that was pretty far from always the case.

That was a Civ6 issue because it had Governors, Era Score, Districts, National Parks, Missionaries covering half the map, Rock Bands
Basically tons and tons of 'busy work'
That's why no one liked the late game of that.

But it's not a CIV ISSUE necessarily, that's my personal opinion.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think they solved the end game problem. The age transitions hit everyone equally in theory, but in practice AI limitations mean they hit the AI way harder. And they've really changed how you snowball rather tham getting rid of snowballing itself. It's more about setting up your ageless stuff in antiquity/exploration so you explode quick in the next one

And modern is even more of a "hit next turn till you win" than it has been in previous civs. So I'd almost argue they made the end game worse...

Said as someone with hundreds of very fun hours in Civ7. Their design goals in this area were not achieved I think.

I guess they did achieve making civs feel good in whichever era they can be played, but the price tag for that being civ switching probably wasn't a good deal...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Wouldn't that make it too powerful? Those Numidian Cavalries are already good I think.

Would definitely need testing to balance.

Given that there are numerous other things to use Gold for, I'm of mixed mind: if Isabella was playing Carthage, sure, it would be 'way over the top, but then several Leader-Civ combinations are already pretty OP, so that's not a decisive problem.

Balance could be achieved by variations in the Gold cost of units for Carthage and everybody else compared to the Influence cost already in-game. Also, you generally don't get promoted/advanced units from the City States - in fact, I don't think I have ever seen a Chariot offered as a possible buy from them. If implemented formally, that would also keep Carthage from 'cheating' and getting regular mounted units in addition to the Numidians.

Other possibly balance effects could be limiting the units available in other ways - like, no Quadriremes which would allow a really OP navy to be instantly produced, or an increased Maintenance cost per turn for 'mercenary' units that would place another drain on your Gold supply.

There are lots of ways to balance any game mechanic - many of which, like the ones suggested above, can be found in a careful reading of the history of the times, Civs and conditions: mercenaries were more expensive to keep around because if not paid, they looted everything in sight and left, and nobody hired a mercenary fleet in Antiquity, because such fleets were basically, pirates and so totally unreliable as either mercenaries or allies.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't think they solved the end game problem. The age transitions hit everyone equally in theory, but in practice AI limitations mean they hit the AI way harder. And they've really changed how you snowball rather tham getting rid of snowballing itself. It's more about setting up your ageless stuff in antiquity/exploration so you explode quick in the next one

And modern is even more of a "hit next turn till you win" than it has been in previous civs. So I'd almost argue they made the end game worse...

Said as someone with hundreds of very fun hours in Civ7. Their design goals in this area were not achieved I think.

I guess they did achieve making civs feel good in whichever era they can be played, but the price tag for that being civ switching probably wasn't a good deal...

I do think that they at least have made you race until the end of the exploration era. Like in my current game, I know that I have "won" the game (ie. I can't reasonably see a way to lose the game), but I am still in a little battle with myself to see how well I can close out the exploration era.

The modern era, yeah, it will be pretty much just cleaning things up and figuring which victory condition comes first. But I do think it's probably a shorter route to victory than it would have been in civ 6, when you count from the moment that you just stop caring anymore. and at least now, I get a few turns where I get some fun at trying a new civ, seeing what they can unlock, etc as a break from what I just spend the last few hours playing.

Have they solved the end game problem? No. But I don't think it's worse than previous games, at least.

 

[Leucarum]

I do think that they at least have made you race until the end of the exploration era. Like in my current game, I know that I have "won" the game (ie. I can't reasonably see a way to lose the game), but I am still in a little battle with myself to see how well I can close out the exploration era.

The modern era, yeah, it will be pretty much just cleaning things up and figuring which victory condition comes first. But I do think it's probably a shorter route to victory than it would have been in civ 6, when you count from the moment that you just stop caring anymore. and at least now, I get a few turns where I get some fun at trying a new civ, seeing what they can unlock, etc as a break from what I just spend the last few hours playing.

Have they solved the end game problem? No. But I don't think it's worse than previous games, at least.

I dunno... I think by the end of antiquity if you are setting yourself up the game is pretty much over. If you know you'll get an explosive start in exploration that's it!

 

[Kwami]

Or they "fixed" the wrong problem, which was the AI is not a challenge in the late-game. Which seems to be a problem now in both CivVI and CivVII

It was also a problem in Civ IV and Civ V. And probably Civs I-III, but I haven't played those ones.

Keeping the AI challenging in the late game is very difficult.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It was also a problem in Civ IV and Civ V. And probably Civs I-III, but I haven't played those ones.

Keeping the AI challenging in the late game is very difficult.

- and not just very difficult in Civ games.

Play EU (any number) from first to last, and the last part of the game, unless you have completely screwed up, is your Mega-Empire rolling over the world.

Likewise, the Anno games all come down to getting bigger and better constantly until you Roll Over any opposition or difficulty.

Maintaining balance between AI and Human requires far better AI or 'magic' tweaks to the game to even come close, and that seems to be independent of the structure of the game.

 

[j51]

They could make the crises only apply to human players be an option. That won’t satisfy those that don’t like any setbacks in general, but it could help nudge the difficulty for those that like them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

At this point, it feels a bit like beating a dead horse - but if you design a game like a board game, where you have to constantly interact with or click on everything because automation of tedious tasks isn't an option, then late-game fatigue is inevitable. Ed Beach created the problem in civ6 and then “solved” it in civ7 by removing large portions of what most players consider core features - while still clinging to the board game philosophy. Previous civ games also had late game fatigue to some degree, but builders with limited charges vs. workers that could be automated made a big difference. The districts also added to late game fatigue because some cities are just not interesting. Basicly all the new features of civ6 made late game even grindier. What works and is fun on a small map is not the same as what works and is fun on a huge map. Imagine playing chess on a 1000x1000 board - tedious.

I have over a hundred mods installed to make Civ6 playable, and a LOT of them boil down to the Deva forgetting that we are playing on a computer

Just played Civ VI today and admired the art and animation and life on the map.

All those people who years ago said that the stylized graphics stay fresh were absolutely right, the graphics dont look outdated at all.

Civ6 is the best looking game in the series, and at least as far as the map goes probably the most functional one, I always instantly know what I am looking at

It’s also the only art style that is aging well

I'm less worried about historic immersion than I am role playing immersion. I do think that taking my civ away, changing some stuff and presenting it back to me in a different form, does feel like its breaking my immersion. They can fix it I think by keeping the era system but making the transition less dramatic. Let me keep my units, make them outdated, let me keep my cities and all my building adjecencies, but make it so new buildings are more powerful. I am less worried about the snowball effect.

As well as putting the game on rails, it completely murders any sense of role play or immersion at all

 

[King of Prussia]

From a devs perspective, people not finishing games is an issue. You are spending $$$$$$$$$$ to make all those late game assets, time researching the stuff needed for them, etc,. That is a lot of time and resources that isnt being used by the players. There was a discussion about what an old Civ dev(Johnson?) about the issues with late game. Mainly that you would almost need 2 separate games to keep it both fresh and competitive.

Anyways, im not going to say 7 did a good job at addressing these issues but it is something they have to try and address. We will see if they try and dial back the age transition rubberbanding, make it smoother, or make it less punishing. Im sure they will take a fresh stab at it in the next civ game.

As for AI. Making it competitive for 200-300 turns is a real challenge. Snowballing is an issue all strategy games have. You can try and find ways to rubberband players back together, but it also has to be done in a way that isnt unfair to the one playing really well. People love getting stuff. They hate having stuff they did undone or taken away.

 

[Xur]

From a devs perspective, people not finishing games is an issue. You are spending $$$$$$$$$$ to make all those late game assets, time researching the stuff needed for them, etc,. That is a lot of time and resources that isnt being used by the players. There was a discussion about what an old Civ dev(Johnson?) about the issues with late game. Mainly that you would almost need 2 separate games to keep it both fresh and competitive.

Anyways, im not going to say 7 did a good job at addressing these issues but it is something they have to try and address. We will see if they try and dial back the age transition rubberbanding, make it smoother, or make it less punishing. Im sure they will take a fresh stab at it in the next civ game.

As for AI. Making it competitive for 200-300 turns is a real challenge. Snowballing is an issue all strategy games have. You can try and find ways to rubberband players back together, but it also has to be done in a way that isnt unfair to the one playing really well. People love getting stuff. They hate having stuff they did undone or taken away.

When does the dev's needs come before the customer? That sounds like a guaranteed way to fail in all business. Ultimately, there's only the customer's needs and your ability to meet them. The customer had no problem not finishing games.

Imagine I ordered a 5 course meal, and the restaurant gladly sold it to me. Even though I couldn't finish all the dishes, the restaurant still prepared everything - and still got paid. If I couldn't have had that 5 course meal, I wouldn't have ordered it. I would have gone to another restaurant. They made that money dispite me not eating it all. It's a made up fantasy problem.

 

[WeirdDud]

When does the dev's needs come before the customer? That sounds like a guaranteed way to fail in all business. Ultimately, there's only the customer's needs and your ability to meet them. The customer had no problem not finishing games.

Imagine I ordered a 5 course meal, and the restaurant gladly sold it to me. Even though I couldn't finish all the dishes, the restaurant still prepared everything - and still got paid. If I couldn't have had that 5 course meal, I wouldn't have ordered it. I would have gone to another restaurant. They made that money dispite me not eating it all. It's a made up fantasy problem.

In any case where you need to support a piece of software over a long period of time. If it's hard to implement or fix stuff in terms of effort, it'll cost you more time in manhours and thus cost more money per feature/fix. If the developer experience is sufficiently bad (for example, setting up a dev environment requiring high amounts of troubleshooting), you can run into morale problems or brain drain and that's REALLY bad. Speaking from experience with neglected AngularJs projects.

In your analogy, the kitchen needs to be sufficiently equipped AND maintained. If there's an issue with one of the stoves, your restaurant's throughput will fall or be unable to meet customer needs. In other words, the business staff of the restaurant must fulfill the kitchen staff's needs to fulfill the customer's needs.

 

[Xur]

In any case where you need to support a piece of software over a long period of time. If it's hard to implement or fix stuff in terms of effort, it'll cost you more time in manhours and thus cost more money per feature/fix. If the developer experience is sufficiently bad (for example, setting up a dev environment requiring high amounts of troubleshooting), you can run into morale problems or brain drain and that's REALLY bad. Speaking from experience with neglected AngularJs projects.

In your analogy, the kitchen needs to be sufficiently equipped AND maintained. If there's an issue with one of the stoves, your restaurant's throughput will fall or be unable to meet customer needs. In other words, the business staff of the restaurant must fulfill the kitchen staff's needs to fulfill the customer's needs.

All that is just 100% irrelevant to the customer.

 

[King of Prussia]

When does the dev's needs come before the customer? That sounds like a guaranteed way to fail in all business. Ultimately, there's only the customer's needs and your ability to meet them. The customer had no problem not finishing games.

Imagine I ordered a 5 course meal, and the restaurant gladly sold it to me. Even though I couldn't finish all the dishes, the restaurant still prepared everything - and still got paid. If I couldn't have had that 5 course meal, I wouldn't have ordered it. I would have gone to another restaurant. They made that money dispite me not eating it all. It's a made up fantasy problem.

At the end of the day, its the Devs game. Not yours. It is their creation. Or using your reference. It is their dishes that you are eating and enjoying. You go there because you like their food, or want to try it out. If enough people dont eat or like one of their items, they either have to change it or remove it. Wasting $$$$$$$$$ on something that very few enjoy is not a sound business move. You dont own them. Those aren't your dishes. You can offer your opinion on what they should do/offer, but they dont have to listen to it. As a business, you make a product you think people are interested in, but at the end of the day it is your product. If you make a product people are no longer interested in, you either adapt or go out of business.

All that is just 100% irrelevant to the customer.

It is 100% relevant to the customer unless you care about nothing other than "is this yummy".


Like i said, i dont think they were successful in their attempts at fixing snowballing or making the late game interesting. I dont consider leaving them as **** is a viable option. Saying people had no problem with the late game being meh isnt true. Its been a very common complaint for years. If you think that is ok, then that is fair. I and many others disagree.

 

[reddishrecue]

I have over a hundred mods installed to make Civ6 playable, and a LOT of them boil down to the Deva forgetting that we are playing on a computer



Civ6 is the best looking game in the series, and at least as far as the map goes probably the most functional one, I always instantly know what I am looking at

It’s also the only art style that is aging well



As well as putting the game on rails, it completely murders any sense of role play or immersion at all

I agree, civ 6 could be the best game in the series IMHO as well.