All Quiet on the Civ Front

[V. Soma]

While waiting for news I play Through the Ages PC game and hey ☺ it is great

 

[Arent11]

Civ I was great because I'd never played anything like it before
Civ II was simple to mod which I liked. Massive improvement over I. I saw no reason to play I after II came out
Civ III was my least favourite of the series although I can't remember why now. Ridiculous corruption, too much of a wargame I think
Civ IV was great. Still the best IMO
Civ V was ok but it didn't feel like an improvement on IV. I hated 1 upt at 1st.
Civ VI improved some things from V and added some great new features but still has some big flaws. The potential is there, hopefully it'll get there

Civ I was a great idea with great (hehe) graphics for that time. Of course now it's outdated.
Civ II was a remake with better graphics.
Civ III were some slight modifications. They tried to improve, some ideas were good, others not so much.
Civ IV was great. Outdated graphics. Remake please!
Civ V had some good ideas. But they got the civ traits wrong. I want to roleplay a militaristic/scientific/mercantile etc. civ. The weird traits the civs have hinder me to roleplay.
Civ VI had some great ideas, others not so much. Again, they got the civ traits "wrong", which is my major complaint.

-> If you want me to like the newer civs, give me a custom civ option

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Civ I was a great idea with great (hehe) graphics for that time. Of course now it's outdated.
Civ II was a remake with better graphics.
Civ III were some slight modifications. They tried to improve, some ideas were good, others not so much.
Civ IV was great. Outdated graphics. Remake please!
Civ V had some good ideas. But they got the civ traits wrong. I want to roleplay a militaristic/scientific/mercantile etc. civ. The weird traits the civs have hinder me to roleplay.
Civ VI had some great ideas, others not so much. Again, they got the civ traits "wrong", which is my major complaint.

-> If you want me to like the newer civs, give me a custom civ option

To each his own, but I don't know how you like the Civ IV trait system more than the more "modern" way of true uniques. IMO they were a step backwards from how Alpha Centauri did it several years previous (but a step forward for the direct franchise).

 

[Leyrann]

Civ I was a great idea with great (hehe) graphics for that time. Of course now it's outdated.
Civ II was a remake with better graphics.
Civ III were some slight modifications. They tried to improve, some ideas were good, others not so much.
Civ IV was great. Outdated graphics. Remake please!
Civ V had some good ideas. But they got the civ traits wrong. I want to roleplay a militaristic/scientific/mercantile etc. civ. The weird traits the civs have hinder me to roleplay.
Civ VI had some great ideas, others not so much. Again, they got the civ traits "wrong", which is my major complaint.

-> If you want me to like the newer civs, give me a custom civ option

What's a good civ trait then? A trait that doesn't have any connection to who you're playing (which, I would argue, is one of the best things to have for roleplaying)?

 

[Fippy]

I liked the advisors in Civ3, was fun watching their emotions.
Unsure why they cut those out of IV.
But otherwise, not that great yup..corruption system was pretty annoying.

What IV does so well imo: Leader personalities & behaviour.
You know if you start next to Monty, Shaka etc you really must worry about your defenses.
Not just for some random AI stupidity like pointless war declarations without units close, but those guys can bring dangerous stacks that end your game on high diff. levels early.
Or Mansa & Lizzy trading somewhere far away, you can expect being behind in tech later.

Civ should go back to serious leaders, diplo and AIs.
5 and 6 remind me a bit of playing comics with random chars, sowy.

 

[Arent11]

To each his own, but I don't know how you like the Civ IV trait system more than the more "modern" way of true uniques. IMO they were a step backwards from how Alpha Centauri did it several years previous (but a step forward for the direct franchise).

What's a good civ trait then? A trait that doesn't have any connection to who you're playing (which, I would argue, is one of the best things to have for roleplaying)?

Of course they were "backwards", especially if compared to AC. Just think about it:

AC: Spartans. They are a typical "warrior civ" - better morale (+combat for all units), better police (better to police conquered cities). You basically have a culture that has "elite troops", all your units are better, you have martial law. Makes perfect sense to me.
Civ IV: Militaristic trait, gives you free promotions & cheaper barracks (If I remember correctly). That's not a great advantage, but works well with the idea of "roleplaying" a military civ - your units gain free promotions because they are soo good & you can build barracks faster. Makes perfect sense to me.
Civ VI: Scythia. You get +5 combat against wounded units. Uh, wait what? My elite troops need to damage the enemy first to have some advantage? Err, may I ask why?
Civ VI: Aztecs. You get +combat for luxuries. Err, so my culture does not have great warriors per se, but instead they somehow fight better the more luxuries they have? Shouldn't it be the other way around, the more luxuries there are the more decadent they become?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I have no doubt that if the next iteration of civ went from uniques back to a trait system, the team would be accused of lazy corner-cutting. No doubt that there would be much less involved in design, AI programing, playtesting, balancing.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Of course they were "backwards", especially if compared to AC. Just think about it:

AC: Spartans. They are a typical "warrior civ" - better morale (+combat for all units), better police (better to police conquered cities). You basically have a culture that has "elite troops", all your units are better, you have martial law. Makes perfect sense to me.
Civ IV: Militaristic trait, gives you free promotions & cheaper barracks (If I remember correctly). That's not a great advantage, but works well with the idea of "roleplaying" a military civ - your units gain free promotions because they are soo good & you can build barracks faster. Makes perfect sense to me.
Civ VI: Scythia. You get +5 combat against wounded units. Uh, wait what? My elite troops need to damage the enemy first to have some advantage? Err, may I ask why?
Civ VI: Aztecs. You get +combat for luxuries. Err, so my culture does not have great warriors per se, but instead they somehow fight better the more luxuries they have? Shouldn't it be the other way around, the more luxuries there are the more decadent they become?

Aztec society was becoming increasingly hierarchical before it's conquest and the military was the only route where someone could advance pretty much on talent alone. Warriors fought for social advancement and the material rewards it could bring. The more luxuries the more rewards.

Scythia was fairly typical of nomad societies. Its troops were better at harrying the enemy than engaging them in straight battle.

Not all militaristic societies were exactly the same.

I think the system in Civ V and VI makes playing the civs better, they seem more individual.
On the other hand the agendas don't seem to make enough difference to how AI Civs play.

 

[Disgustipated]

BERT is an exception,

And SMAC. Granted, I only play once or twice a year, but it still holds a place in my heart. That game can be tough, diplomacy isn't easy. If you don't give what the AI wants, they will just straight up attack you. And this wasn't with aggressive personalities on. I have to say I like 5 and 6's move towards more peaceful societies.

Though early game can still be rough, as it should be. I understand the complaints above, but keep in mind the age/era you are in.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have no doubt that if the next iteration of civ went from uniques back to a trait system, the team would be accused of lazy corner-cutting. No doubt that there would be much less involved in design, AI programing, playtesting, balancing.

The Civ franchise involves so many different types of gamers, no design decision they make could avoid complaints from some corners.

I'm in the camp for wanting more streamlined, simpler rules that are applied as consistently as possible across various game systems. I don't need four or five different unique attributes per Civ leader that provide a hodge podge of various benefits, what I'd like are Civ leaders who behave differently in different circumstances, but with an internal consistency to their behaviour.

So, for example, take Pericles: give him a bonus to generating envoys, give him a bonus for being Suzerain of City States, make him dislike civs who conquer City States, and make him unlikely to ever attack a City State himself. Maybe that's lazy and unsubtle, but for me Pericles now has a personality that distinguishes him from the others.

 

[PhilBowles]

I liked the advisors in Civ3, was fun watching their emotions.
Unsure why they cut those out of IV.
But otherwise, not that great yup..corruption system was pretty annoying.

What IV does so well imo: Leader personalities & behaviour.

I miss this about Civ V, and its absence is my biggest gripe with Civ VI. Civ IV's implementation was rather rudimentary (certain civs were warmongers and behaved basically like the other warmongers, certain civs liked religion and had the same modifiers as one another for it - which in any case were often rendered irrelevant by the ever-growing positives for years of peace and trade. There was also too little variability in how they behaved - personality is great but I don't want the same civ to play exactly the same way every game any more than I want one that plays exactly like all the other civs), but in Civ V it was so good there were entertaining (and largely accurate) threads on the forum summing up each character's distinct personality in a paragraph or so.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

personality is great but I don't want the same civ to play exactly the same way every game any more than I want one that plays exactly like all the other civs)

With 36 leaders in Civ 6, I'm less concerned about this, especially if their preferences lead to different AI interactions depending on which group of leaders you get for any given game. I'm fine if Gandhi starts flinging nukes at the leader he likes least each game, 'cuz how many games am I going to roll Gandhi anyway?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The Civ franchise involves so many different types of gamers, no design decision they make could avoid complaints from some corners.

I'm in the camp for wanting more streamlined, simpler rules that are applied as consistently as possible across various game systems. I don't need four or five different unique attributes per Civ leader that provide a hodge podge of various benefits, what I'd like are Civ leaders who behave differently in different circumstances, but with an internal consistency to their behaviour.

So, for example, take Pericles: give him a bonus to generating envoys, give him a bonus for being Suzerain of City States, make him dislike civs who conquer City States, and make him unlikely to ever attack a City State himself. Maybe that's lazy and unsubtle, but for me Pericles now has a personality that distinguishes him from the others.

Streamlining wouldn't be a bad idea for some civs. I guess I was thinking of more of the "leader trait" type system:
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Leader_trait_(Civ4)

Every civ had a combination of two of those things, and nothing unique. I don't think that would fly today. It would also severely limit the desire for "extra civs" for sale, of course.

I do agree with you that it wouldn't be a horrible thing for each civ to have an ability that could be summed up in one short sentence o so.

 

[PhilBowles]

With 36 leaders in Civ 6, I'm less concerned about this, especially if their preferences lead to different AI interactions depending on which group of leaders you get for any given game. I'm fine if Gandhi starts flinging nukes at the leader he likes least each game, 'cuz how many games am I going to roll Gandhi anyway?

As far as I can tell, there is no difference at all between AI leaders in Civ VI as far as personality is concerned - any differences just arise from differences in uniques, so you're playing against different stat bonuses rather than different leaders. It's possible there's a specific exception for Gandhi, simply because his behaviour needs to be coded a certain way to maximise the benefit from his leader UA (if he's as aggressive as the others he'll never get a faith bonus). At the very least, he's the only one I've noticed who won't Zerg-rush from the start or endlessly war at random with other civs, and that's the sole difference I've noticed between him and the others.

 

[RohirrimElf]

I agree once you're past the early game, but something between patches seems to have made the Deity AI much more aggressive. I seem to continually get starts where I get declared on by two civs by turn 30 or so, and while I can beat one I can't beat both. They've even fixed the behaviour earlier in the game's lifecycle where the AI would apparently be unable to take cities.

I still wouldn't call that Civ VI being difficult in the sense that other Civ games are - it's a cheat, essentially, given the AI's extra early units, and there's nothing remotely strategic about it in the sense that it's not something that results from poor planning or tech choices, just from poor start positions (defined in this context as anywhere with no choke points and at least two nearby civs). While you'd usually lose in Civ IV or V to aggression or not at all, that was something that happened later in the game as a result of having neglected military, and required the AI itself to actually build up over time. Civ VI is akin to a Starcraft Zerg rush in which the Zerg player gets 30 free Zerglings at the start.

Yes, just the first 2 era’s give or take. On that phase civ 6 is challenging and fun. After that the starting bonus the AI civs got is passed and you could pretty much press enter thoughtlessly to victory. An AI equal on score as your nation has no chance against a decent human player. It only gets worse. The AI easely takes 50 more turns to build up to victory as a human player (epic game speed)

 

[Arent11]

So, for example, take Pericles: give him a bonus to generating envoys, give him a bonus for being Suzerain of City States, make him dislike civs who conquer City States, and make him unlikely to ever attack a City State himself. Maybe that's lazy and unsubtle, but for me Pericles now has a personality that distinguishes him from the others.

No, it's not lazy, it's building a civ around a common theme - in this case city states & diplomacy. Right now the civ designers want to make the civs flexible & give them many options - scythia has combat advantages, but also faith from kurgans, egypt can build wonders, but also gets trade advantages etc.

But I want a theme that defines a civ:

Sparta: Warrior. Combat advantage, free promotions, cheaper barracks
Germany: Industrial. Cheaper industrial zones, unique workshop, free walls from the start
Egypt: (Wonder) builders. Get cheaper wonders, additional builder charges, can use builders to rush wonders
Pericles: Diplomat. Gets better city states, gets higher diplomatic visibility
Persian: Merchants. Get better trade routes, cheaper commercial hubs

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The problem with the civs that seem to be everywhere is that people insisted on wanting multiple individual leaders and leader characteristics separate from civ ability.

I do want more cohesive civs but at the same time do not want to go back to choosing two traits out of a list of ten or so.

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes, just the first 2 era’s give or take. On that phase civ 6 is challenging and fun. After that the starting bonus the AI civs got is passed and you could pretty much press enter thoughtlessly to victory. An AI equal on score as your nation has no chance against a decent human player. It only gets worse. The AI easely takes 50 more turns to build up to victory as a human player (epic game speed)

Pretty much. This is the issue with giving the AI flat bonuses at the start and that's it - someone else suggested giving the AI bonuses at different game stages, which as I recall was the way it was handled in Civs IV and V. Yes, there were starting bonuses, but also proportional buffs to resource output that naturally scaled with the game. That doesn't seem to occur in Civ VI at all - a Civ may rocket up to 60 science very early on the back of its extra starting population/cities and ability to expand faster still by then capturing city states with the free starting army, but since it can't leverage those advantages over the long term and gets no ongoing buffs once the player has caught up in number of cities etc they fall behind.

The problem with the civs that seem to be everywhere is that people insisted on wanting multiple individual leaders and leader characteristics separate from civ ability.

People also wanted religious victory. A salutory lesson that players aren't designers and don't know what makes for good gameplay - while not pandering may upset some more vocal players, ignoring ideas that don't make for great gameplay ultimately makes a better game that more people will engage with as a result.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No, it's not lazy, it's building a civ around a common theme - in this case city states & diplomacy. Right now the civ designers want to make the civs flexible & give them many options - scythia has combat advantages, but also faith from kurgans, egypt can build wonders, but also gets trade advantages etc.

But I want a theme that defines a civ:

Sparta: Warrior. Combat advantage, free promotions, cheaper barracks
Germany: Industrial. Cheaper industrial zones, unique workshop, free walls from the start
Egypt: (Wonder) builders. Get cheaper wonders, additional builder charges, can use builders to rush wonders
Pericles: Diplomat. Gets better city states, gets higher diplomatic visibility
Persian: Merchants. Get better trade routes, cheaper commercial hubs

All of those civilisations were notable for military achievements, not just Sparta
Reducing civs to tropes isn't good design IMO

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

All of those civilisations were notable for military achievements, not just Sparta
Reducing civs to tropes isn't good design IMO

In the context of a game like Civ, though, if the leader's personality isn't reduced to a trope, the leader ends up having no personality.

At some stage in it's history, pretty much every civ was successful militarily. Pretty much every civ was a leader in some aspect of science, generated a cultural influence on it's neighbours, etc. I think it's okay to pick a particular point in the civ's history and focus on one or two things that civ and its leader were particularly renowned for at that time, and build a leader personality around that.