kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,579
Yeah, that would be a very unsatisfactory solution imo.I know people don’t like these kind of solutions ...
Yeah, that would be a very unsatisfactory solution imo.I know people don’t like these kind of solutions ...
I agree with you.thsts why i only play civ5,none of the problems mentioned are there.i have full scale wars,civs that are decimated city states that actually last and not run over by ai,i tried pkaying 6 after release but realized its more a city builder than civ.and for city building there are other games..Civ V had that weird overpunishing wide approach. However, it is also clear to me that civ VI is designed so the game turns peaceful from middle ages till end game.
VI has now that weird plain DF penalty, that means that if the player takes more than a civ in the game, the whole WC, competitions, emergencies, and favor mechanics become pointless.
VI is designed so domination victory is the hardest to get, and the least satisfactory one, due to the fact that forces the domination player to micromanage hell exponentially with the ammount of cities, and offers no domination alternative to take cities.
VI is designed to not even consider late wars a thing. As so, AI domination victory is imposible making domination the only victory type that the AI is uncapable of achieving. Furthermore, the AI even lacks the knowledge and will to try to achieve it. This is then the first Civ game in 30 years where the AI does not challenge the player to domination, and where big scale wars are imposible. So basically is the first civ game ever where conquering the world is not supposed to be a goal.
It is true that civ VI rewards having more cities, and therefore makes the game easier the more you war, but is also true that the game is also designed to make the game more pointless and boring the more you war. Which is the worst way posible to discourage the player. It is true that is not the first game of the series that is guilty of this, but it may be the first that is intentionally designed to be this way. With repetition and shallowness being not a side effect in late game, but a core design element.
So I think, quite the opposite is true, Civ VI not only discourages war, but is designed to remove domimation and war from the late game entirely.
I would also argue that religious victory, culture victory and diplomatic victory are so pointless and badly implemented and designed that should not even be in the game. While i will also admit that science victory is the best it has ever been.
The game is as a result a game of civilization where global conflict does not exist, domination is non-fuctional, war is broken and diplomacy is pointless. As such, civ VI may be a fun game in many ways, and certainly is one of the most enjoyable games of the series in city building, multiplayer, scenarios and variety. But as a civ game, I think is time to be honest and say it... Civilization VI is probably the worst civilization game of the series to the point it does not work as a civilization game at all. Personally it is the first civilization game (and I played them all) that seriously dissapointed me, and as is also by far the most expensive game of the series. So I think it may be the last civilization game I ever buy it they decide to keep this philosophy.
While I agree with You on most points, CIV VI does have a score victory, which is somewhat like fame in Humankind....also u can remove any type of victory from Your game or every one of them - leaving score and even changing number of turns when it's triggered. So it is quite agile in that regard. The problem is even if removed certain one, AI will still try to win using programmed path, which bring us to issue that is being repeated at least 100 times a day....let us mod AI - with lua, or release dll....Personally I'd honestly revolutionize the entire way 'victory' works in this game. I don't think there is another strategy game in which there is such tension between the gameplay and victory conditions. On one hand Civ (sometimes) wants to be immersive, on another hand it has those wildly arcade victory conditions akin to the sport competition. Once again, the victory conditions don't really make sense withing the world of historical empires. What exactly does it mean for historical culture to 'win'? Did America get a standing ovation and title of the best country from UN because of the Moon landing or its few decades of popcultural dominance? Did Jews got a special statue of them built from gold to mark their religious victory across the globe? Don't even ask me about the diplomatic victory.
Even besides that, victory conditions contribute to the problem of terrible endgame, because the way they are done is inherently benefitting linear growth of runaway elite. There is nothing allowing any sort of dramatic change in those races from antiquity to space. By the renaissance era you can basically divide factions on the camp of 'obstacle to victory' and 'certainly not an obstacle to victory'. Factions from the second camp never get into the first.
Paradox games have no victory conditions at all, and thus can invest fully into immersion and lack of derailing mechanics; all countries in eu4, human included, have their own realpolitik. Humankind is instead going for a victory system based on 'Fame', namely spectacular and risky actions done at every age of the game and summarized at the end. Both seem to be better solutions to me than the civ method.
While I agree with You on most points, CIV VI does have a score victory, which is somewhat like fame in Humankind....also u can remove any type of victory from Your game or every one of them - leaving score and even changing number of turns when it's triggered. So it is quite agile in that regard. The problem is even if removed certain one, AI will still try to win using programmed path, which bring us to issue that is being repeated at least 100 times a day....let us mod AI - with lua, or release dll....
Yes, the mid/Iate game in CIV VI is sometimes extremely static, specially when (in most cases actually) u know it's already a win. Adding new completely detached mechanisms only makes it worse.No, because Fame is a refined system of much more than 'just another way to name score count.' You do get era 'stars' per specific actions in every era separately and they benefit risky actions; iirc they specifically said something like 'it may pay off to be spectacular in one era even if you collapse if the next one' - there is more dynamism in this sentence than in the entire civ6 combined, with its linear snowballing slog until inevitable victory. Civ6 score victory is just was static and boring as each other victory type, because it's just the linear score counter frm which you can easily deduce endgame victors halfway through the game. At least on paper Humankind more aims at the approach of 'Mongols went really crazy in one era, and even though they collapsed later they are still one of the greatest empires of human history'.
Of course God knows how it will work in practice, but here at least devs acknowledge the issue of static mid to late game and are trying some radical ideas to deal with that.
I know people don’t like these kind of solutions but if the problem is truly the walls why not remove the combat penalty for attacking cities with walls for the AI on deity and immortal? I don’t think that would be too hard for us players to deal with and since the AI they attack will also benefit I’d call it balanced.
Also I STRONGLY agree with changing siege to support class units and allowing them to be stacked.
As wonderful as 1UP is for us players, I think it’s crippling.
I hope we eventually get access to the DLL for mod teams to work on the AI because every patch that there is “AI improvement” in the notes I feel it’s just adjusting numbers on the tables which is something we can do ourselves. I did notice some small improvement the first patch or so of NFP but the last few patches have seemed to make things worse. For anyone who isn’t aware, you can get the AI to trade many of their cities away again now.
Can't say I notice this. I usually end up never meeting 1-2 civs because they died early.
Me too.
What are your game settings?
I dunno. I usually play pretty aggressive and work with other AIs to take down other AIs. I'm aware the AI is a big potato, but if you help them, then things become much more dynamic. Now, if you're passive and leave the AI to its own devices, it's a bit slow.
I dont have a problem with strong walls that acts as a buffer. My problem is that the walls can shoot. The AI brings 2 siege units on a good day, so they are fairly easy to stop. The AI itself even attacks siege units over anything else first. Remove the ranged attack from walls, and much of the problem is gone... I think.
What a strange false dichotomy. Each civ should simply care for itself like in real world, not form some hivemind against human. It has worked like this in previous games and in other strategy games.
What a strange misunderstanding. Civs dont just care for themselves in the real world. They very much form alliances and pay attention to who is top dog in the region. They definitely team up against someone when its to their advantage.
Even board games irl, youd absolutely team up or at least consider teaming up against the guy about to win.