All Quiet on the Civ Front

[acluewithout]

Gandhi aside I've noticed no difference at all in aggression, and none in expansion behaviour, between civs in Civ VI. Differences in willingness to make friends seem to be based simply on agenda modifiers - you can see from the modifier screen that every civ will have the same base modifier for first impressions, which wasn't the case in Civ V.



'Personality' is a term used to describe consistent behaviour by individual civs - not literally considering the civ as a person. It's completely immaterial if you focus on Mongolia or on a badly-drawn caricature of Genghis Khan. It seems to have become a regrettable convention to refer even to civs with a single leader by the leader name rather than the civ name, but I too am only interested in the civs I'm facing. I do however want to get the sense that these are entities working in their own interests and with specific traits that can tell me 'This is Korea' or 'this is England' rather than 'I know these are the Zulu because they're green, but they play exactly like Persia or Australia'.



This is the strength of Civ V's system - the civs act within individually defined limits but are not completely predictable. Civ VI gets the worst of both worlds - not only do civs lack personality, but since the only axis on which they vary at all is their agendas (which are fixed), where they do have individual idiosyncracies these are always the same in every game, without variability. Gandhi's no-war thing or the claimed refusal of Gorgo to accept certain peace deals, for instance, will never change between sessions. While of course the general AI behaviour that isn't specific to any civ is always the same every game.

Civs in Civ VI play utterly identically across any number of playthroughs as a result. It's been too long to recall offhand, but I'm not sure if this was even completely true in Civs I and II - it certainly wasn't in V.



I'd like it to be more strategically interesting - and it might be if it didn't have the usual Civ VI 'random walk to victory' issue that you can make basically any 'strategic' choice you like and still win, which means you aren't meaningfully following a strategy. They're choices that simply reflect preference - there's about as much strategy involved as there is in choosing vanilla ice cream over another flavour.

Reading your comments maybe we're not far apart, and you do make some good points. I don't think leader or civ personality is at the top of my list of things I wish were better, I'd rate having more to do diplomatically higher tbh. But 'personality' is on my list one way or another, even if just in the sense I wish the AI was more strategic.

Somehow I feel like I am a persona non grata at Firaxis for all of this snooping, despite the friendly front from marketing...

Well, I hope not. Honestly, it's you and a few others on this board that are keeping interested in the game at all.

Hopefully not true. The bits of information you've been able to dig up shouldn't have had any negative impact on Civ 6 sales. And the audience for that information is a tiny slice of the overall market, a group of fanatics who obsess over little details and like to eagerly anticipate "what comes next?" Per this thread, we'll do that even in the absence of any tangible evidence.

I do think Firaxis got some unnecessarily negative comments on this board for being "late" with a patch they hadn't even announced. That's not on you, as you've always been very objective in presenting the information you've found. It may have mostly been a result of a video going up and coming down, anyway, as opposed to being associated with the information you've dug up. And most of the negative comments were associated with communication, or lack there of, from Firaxis.

I get why marketing will want to control the flow of information about their game, and not allow any information to get out into the public domain that they haven't authorized and put out. The group at Firaxis in particular don't seem well equipped, or inclined, to deal with negative online comments, as the Red Shell situation illustrated. Their preference is for silence and to communicate only their message on their time table. Which may well be the best policy they could adopt, from the perspective of their business objectives. With that type of culture, there will always be a strained relationship with journalists (a role you play, in this narrow field), but hopefully not a personal antagonism.

Man, you should see what people say about FXS on steam and reddit.

FXS have made me a little cross at time, but I really can't see that they're bad guys or acting in bad faith.

 

[Tech Osen]

One thing that kindda bugs me with diplomacy is that I can't see why AIs are at odds with each other, why one denounces the other, no reason is given. Nor can I send out a reason to the world as to why I am denouncing an AI. A system akin to the casu belli system might be nice. But only if AI would actually react to it somehow.
For instance if I denounce an AI for converting one of my cities some AIs might agree with me and some might not, influencing their standing with both me and the AI I denounced.

 

[Scaramanga]

One thing that kindda bugs me with diplomacy is that I can't see why AIs are at odds with each other, why one denounces the other, no reason is given. Nor can I send out a reason to the world as to why I am denouncing an AI. A system akin to the casu belli system might be nice. But only if AI would actually react to it somehow.
For instance if I denounce an AI for converting one of my cities some AIs might agree with me and some might not, influencing their standing with both me and the AI I denounced.

If you knew why they hated each other that would give away all their hidden agendas. It relies on diplomatic visibility and line of sight to know what's going on. I'm 85% sure nobody else knows what kind of war it is besides the two combatants.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm 85% sure nobody else knows what kind of war it is besides the two combatants.

That'd be ironic, when you consider that the whole point of the different types of war is to change how many warmonger points you get, i.e. how justified other civs view your war to be.

 

[Zaarin]

Nor can I send out a reason to the world as to why I am denouncing an AI. A system akin to the casu belli system might be nice. But only if AI would actually react to it somehow.

I've had this beef with 4X games since Birth of the Federation.

 

[Bitterman]

Honestly declaring war with a Cassus Belli should carry some kind of bonus in the battle with it.

I mean those are useless in MP games.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Honestly declaring war with a Cassus Belli should carry some kind of bonus in the battle with it.

I mean those are useless in MP games.

Casus Belli also reduces war weariness, so that's another reason to use them, which is effective in multi player as well as single player.

 

[Scaramanga]

Honestly declaring war with a Cassus Belli should carry some kind of bonus in the battle with it.

I mean those are useless in MP games.

Well, they do for some people - Chandragupta, Robert the Bruce, and Tamar.

I think they can be a good guideline for how to get the most out of war and diplomacy, providing other human players are of the same calibre.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Honestly declaring war with a Cassus Belli should carry some kind of bonus in the battle with it.

I mean those are useless in MP games.

While not exactly bonuses to war, EU4 has different CBs you'll actualy use. For example, other countries will tolerate your warmongering more if you use "Nationalism" CB to unite your culture group. And that's a very good thing, since if you're warmongering too much, other countries can unite against you in a coalition, which can be really pain to deal with, since the AI is capable. And if you don't have CB, you suffer from stability hit.


Also, I hope I'm not too late to add my view on Civ V vs Civ VI leaders. I'm afraid I have to agree with others on the fact that most of the AI behaves the same, with some exceptions like peaceful Gandhi, cultural and scientific beast Mvemba, and total jerk Pedro. In Civ V, however, I know already if I should be happy to meet always friendly Ahmad al-Mansur or be afraid at the very moment Hunnic or Aztec scout sees the borders of my Empire. Whether I should be annoyed to meet treacherous Pachacuti, agressive Suleiman or already prepare for invasion from Japanese Empire led by Oda Nobunaga. Or maybe enjoy the presence of Brazilian civilisation and of their leader Pedro II, loyal and respectable ally. I can differentiate the Civs and I know how their leaders behave.
But I also must compare the leaders' characters. Despite the agendas, I have to say Civ V portrayed most of leaders and their characters much better. Two examples:

Civ V Pedro: Respectable old man, who seems to be tired from leading the country, yet he works hard and does as much as he can for the wellbeing and happiness of his people. He treats you with respect. This feeling is supported by the somewhat sad Brazilian peace theme and the dark sky in the background. When you declare war, he doesn't make threats, but worries about lives of people. In the war, he still talks to you with respect.
Civ VI Pedro: Silly looking jerk with a giant red nose obsessed with great people that you just can't take seriously because of his theme. "Muh Great People! You have earned a Great Person? How dare you! I denounce you, you evil satan!"

Civ V Monty: Scary man standing behind an altar with fire and in front of a wall made of skulls. Harsh voice, waves with knife around him in war, and his war declaration is just "Die! Die! DIE!". Definitely a conqueror. After getting crushed, he curses you and accusses you of being a monster. Crowd cheering/booing is the frosting on the cake. (although he does get some minus points for his Spanish loanwords)
Civ VI Monty: Doesn't look like a conqueror at all. His appearance is funny, and his voice sounds somewhat strange to me. His agenda is annoying. When denouncing you, he jumps like a monkey.

Of course, I'm not saying this applies for all. John Curtin or Teddy Roosevelt are well voiced characters with somewhat good agendas, and Civ V does have some irritating portrayals, like Pachacuti, the Earth Shaker, who acts like a child. But the Civ V combination of backgrounds (Attila on a throne with loot), the fact that the leaders don't have just six lines or so, and the fact that there is more fitting music (war shows tension/sorrow/bloodlust, peace shows glory or beauty of the empire) just show more character to me than sometimes annoying and not fitting agenda and black room with a banner.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ V Monty: Scary man standing behind an altar with fire and in front of a wall made of skulls. Harsh voice, waves with knife around him in war, and his war declaration is just "Die! Die! DIE!". Definitely a conqueror. After getting crushed, he curses you and accusses you of being a monster. Crowd cheering/booing is the frosting on the cake. (although he does get some minus points for his Spanish loanwords)
Civ VI Monty: Doesn't look like a conqueror at all. His appearance is funny, and his voice sounds somewhat strange to me. His agenda is annoying. When denouncing you, he jumps like a monkey.

I agree that Civ6's Monty is horribly designed: what the crap is going on with those feathers? Did the designers never look at a single Aztec codex or painting? Why does he look Middle Eastern? At least Civ6's Monty speaks Classical Nahuatl, though; the mixed-in Spanish in Civ5's Monty's dialogue bothered me. (Doesn't he even call himself emperador rather than huey tlatoani? It's been a while, but I seem to recall that.)

I can't say Civ5's (visual) design for Monty was great, either, though. Thematic? Yes. Overall authentic? Enough. A tad melodramatic? Oh, yes. The lackluster Aztec theme didn't help. (Civ6's Aztec theme isn't the best, but I like it well enough.)


I do really like both Civ5's and Civ6's leader screens in different ways, but in the two examples you cited I absolutely agree. And some neither game did well (stuffy Lizzy and huffy Victoria come to mind--if they wanted a stuffy leader they should have gone with Victoria; if they wanted a moody, mercurial, tantrum-throwing leader they should have gone with Elizabeth I ).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I can't say Civ5's (visual) design for Monty was great, either, though. Thematic? Yes. Overall authentic? Enough. A tad melodramatic? Oh, yes. .

I'll remember Monty in Civ 5 long after all memories of any Civ 6 leader have faded.

 

[Bitterman]

Most of the fault of some leader's comical appearances is the HORRIBLE graphic design.

Monty is not the worst case though. Gengis Khan seems like some kind of chubby manchild with mental problems, in contrast with that determined conqueror on horseback we were accustomed to see on V. And Shaka looks like someone it would be cool to have some drinks with, not that crazy violent warrior who never showed a smile unless you were dying by his spear. And don't make me talk about Alexander, beacuse I really believed it couldn't be done worse than in V.

They could had saved for themselves those stupid animations that no one cares about (I swear I've never ever seen one complete animation set from any leader, not even once) and invested that time creating some beautiful and charismatic backgrounds like in V.

After about 300 hours playing this I still can't cope with this awful graphic design. I hope Firaxis changes this por VII.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

And don't make me talk about Alexander, beacuse I really believed it couldn't be done worse than in V.

You failed to account for Fast Times at Ridgemont High being Ed Beach's favourite movie. *

* I have no idea if this is true, but I want it to be true.

 

[Bitterman]

You failed to account for Fast Times at Ridgemont High being Ed Beach's favourite movie. *

* I have no idea if this is true, but I want it to be true.

HAHA man you made my day with this

 

[Zaarin]

those stupid animations that no one cares about

Speak for yourself. I think they did a great job with Civ6's aesthetic overall and the leader animations in particular. If Civ7 can marry Civ5's attention to detail with Civ6's vivacity, I'll be very pleased.

HORRIBLE graphic design.

I agree that the UI is extremely ugly.

 

[Leyrann]

Unpopular opinion: I like the UI. Both design and functionality.

 

[Bitterman]

Speak for yourself. I think they did a great job with Civ6's aesthetic overall and the leader animations in particular. If Civ7 can marry Civ5's attention to detail with Civ6's vivacity, I'll be very pleased.

Be honest and tell me how many times have you stopped your game just to see an animation, besides (maybe) the first one you played with a certain civ. And as I understand it, animations were one of the most resource intensive things of the game. Even if they were perfect, is something most players will never care more than once. CiV made so much more with so very little.

That was my point, so much effort and time for really not that much. And as others have already stated, many leaders lack personality of previous iterations even with those fancy animations.

About aesthetics, well, it's a matter of opinion. But as far as I know general opinion is they don't fit at all with the game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Unpopular opinion: I like the UI. Both design and functionality.

My primary problem with the UI is the quality of the information provided through it. If it gave the player more useful information that was more consistently correct, I could live with the extra clicks required for simple tasks.

Be honest and tell me how many times have you stopped your game just to see an animation, besides (maybe) the first one you played with a certain civ. And as I understand it, animations were one of the most resource intensive things of the game. Even if they were perfect, is something most players will never care more than once. CiV made so much more with so very little.

That was my point, so much effort and time for really not that much. And as others have already stated, many leaders lack personality of previous iterations even with those fancy animations.

About aesthetics, well, it's a matter of opinion. But as far as I know general opinion is they don't fit at all with the game.

Be honest and tell me why it's so surprising to you that some players have preferences that differ from yours? And who needs to stop their game to see the animations? You see them every time you're negotiating a deal, every time you violate or meet their agenda (unless you're super quick with the ESC button), etc.

And I don't know where you get the idea that there's a general opinion that the "aesthetics" don't fit the game. Would need a pretty substantial poll to draw conclusions on that.

The leader animations are, for me, the only thing that give the Civ 6 leaders a personality. Their in game play doesn't differ enough for me to notice or care who I'm beside on the game map, but at least they have different responses when they decline my trade offers.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My primary problem with the UI is the quality of the information provided through it. If it gave the player more useful information that was more consistently correct, I could live with the extra clicks required for simple tasks.

Yeah, "number of clicks" seems to be the big issue for a lot of people but that in itself doesn't bother me. I just want to sort my city info list by different yields, or know what exactly is going on when I'm trying to get a cultural victory, etc.

 

[Bitterman]

Be honest and tell me why it's so surprising to you that some players have preferences that differ from yours? And who needs to stop their game to see the animations? You see them every time you're negotiating a deal, every time you violate or meet their agenda (unless you're super quick with the ESC button), etc.

And I don't know where you get the idea that there's a general opinion that the "aesthetics" don't fit the game. Would need a pretty substantial poll to draw conclusions on that.

The leader animations are, for me, the only thing that give the Civ 6 leaders a personality. Their in game play doesn't differ enough for me to notice or care who I'm beside on the game map, but at least they have different responses when they decline my trade offers.

I never mentioned preferences though, it's just a matter of time/effort invested and results. And don't tell me you don't insta hit ESC when you have already seen the same thing +1000 times because I won't believe you. CiV animations were much more simpler in general, but backgrounds and leaders realist graphic design added that extra thing. Same or better result and less time/effort invested.

About the aesthetics... I honestly don't know if you are trolling me or what. Just read steam reviews. Even positive ones mention the graphic design as bad feature. And also

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Just a quick search on google, do it for yourself if you don't belive me. It's not like I'm trying to make up this lol.

PD: Someone please tell me how to hide images on spoiler.

Moderator Action: Added spoiler tags for you. leif