[R&F] Alliance meta

[Thormodr]

Well, to pre-empt the responses you're likely to get, you *can* do much in Civ VI, but you can have lots of options without any meaningful choices, and that's a distinction that folks have to process before they comprehend the problem with one methodology supplanting all others.

When a player is consciously making suboptimal choices for the sake of sheer whimsy, they're not playing a game. They're performing an activity.

Well-designed games have structure and boundaries so that player choices feel critical rather than capricious.

First item in the search engine:

game (gām)
►

• n.
  An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
• n.
  A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.
• n.
  A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game.

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th

 

[Kyro]

First item in the search engine:

game (gām)
►

• A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

To quote the same definition. Competition is included in the definition which means power balance is of paramount importance or else the idea falls apart completely.

A player who doesn't play according to the rules is not playing the same game and the rule of Civ 6 dictates that you play to win and therefore efficiency is included as a subset of rules.

Sure anyone can play any way they want but if you want to make a meaningful statement about the game then you should be playing the same game according to the rules.

 

[Thormodr]

To quote the same definition. Competition is included in the definition which means power balance is of paramount importance or else the idea falls apart completely.

A player who doesn't play according to the rules is not playing the same game and the rule of Civ 6 dictates that you play to win and therefore efficiency is included as a subset of rules.

Sure anyone can play any way they want but if you want to make a meaningful statement about the game then you should be playing the same game according to the rules.

We are all playing by the same rules, provided that we aren't using mods that change them.

This is getting off topic and has nothing to do with diplomatic alliances, however.

I, like the Op, am excited about the prospects of meaningful alliances. Sadly, this thread is being derailed by people with other interests.

 

[Kyro]

We are all playing by the same rules, provided that we aren't using mods that change them.

This is getting off topic and has nothing to do with diplomatic alliances, however.

I, like the Op, am excited about the prospects of meaningful alliances. Sadly, this thread is being derailed by people with other interests.

Well no we aren't. Some of us don't play to win. I would never use that to justify that nothing is wrong with the game though. Not so sure about others.

It's not getting derailed because he's talking about alliances in the very specific context of meta which means a comparison with other strategies is necessary for discussion. If OP would like to discuss how alliances can be utilized instead then he should edit his title, opening and remove mention of warmongering as a comparison.

If someone makes a post asking if it could be possible that the earth is flat, stating that the world is factually round would not be derailing would it?

 

[steveg700]

We are all playing by the same rules, provided that we aren't using mods that change them.

This is getting off topic and has nothing to do with diplomatic alliances, however.

I, like the Op, am excited about the prospects of meaningful alliances. Sadly, this thread is being derailed by people with other interests.

You came into this thread on your own anti-Civ V tangent, but I guess everyone's the hero of their own story.

There are interests in diplomatic alliances being meaningful. But that quality is specifically one that can't be met while wide, aggressive play remains unchecked. Any discussion of a meta here has to start with establishing that striking the alliance is, at least in certain situations, as competitive a choice a choice just going on one glorious wide rampage after another.

 

[Thormodr]

You came into this thread on your own anti-Civ V tangent, but I guess everyone's the hero of their own story.

There are interests in diplomatic alliances being meaningful. But that quality is specifically one that can't be met while wide, aggressive play remains unchecked. Any discussion of a meta here has to start with establishing that striking the alliance is, at least certain situations, as competitive a choice a choice just going on one of those glorious wide rampages.

No need to insult, thanks.

I came into this thread to agree with the Op on a well thought out post and his optimism about the new alliance system.

Here is my first post in this thread for edification:

"Rather than being an Eeyore, perhaps we should wait to see how everything pans out. I, for one, am really excited about the new alliance system and the new role playing opportunities.

I would like to try a game where I try to help Georgia win a Religious victory. Yes, I realize that I won’t win the game but who cares? It’ll be fun. I’ll do everything in my power to build the alliance up and assist my bff in the game."

Nothing about Civilization 5 whatsoever.

This thread has been hijacked by special interests with an axe to grind. Shallow Seas other thread on trading met the same fate. Pity.

 

[ShallowSeas]

Well, it seems that with that brief mention of why I don't like Civ V I've helped to derail my own thread, oh well.

I don't think "tall" should ever be the preferred playstyle, but I agree that, currently Civ VI places too much emphasis on rapid expansion vs city development and doesn't do do enough to make huge empires difficult to maintain. I still think that the new features in Rise and Fall will change things for the better.

So guys, who else is excited about the new alliance system?

 

[Thormodr]

Well, it seems that with that brief mention of why I don't like Civ V I've helped to derail my own thread, oh well.

I don't think "tall" should ever be the preferred playstyle, but I agree that, currently Civ VI places too much emphasis on rapid expansion vs city development and doesn't do do enough to make huge empires difficult to maintain. I still think that the new features in Rise and Fall will change things for the better.

So guys, who else is excited about the new alliance system?

I have played both tall and wide in Civ VI. I enjoy playing either way and like to mix things up.
I think that the alliance system will be beneficial to tall empires so if some people are not happy with the balance between tall and wide, it will help.

Whatever the case, I am excited about the possibilities.

 

[steveg700]

Well, it seems that with that brief mention of why I don't like Civ V I've helped to derail my own thread, oh well.

I don't think "tall" should ever be the preferred playstyle, but I agree that, currently Civ VI places too much emphasis on rapid expansion vs city development and doesn't do do enough to make huge empires difficult to maintain. I still think that the new features in Rise and Fall will change things for the better.

So guys, who else is excited about the new alliance system?

It's not a hijack or derail. The relevancy has been articulated a few times now. The point being made was not initiated by allusions to Civ V, but rather by the OP positing that research alliances would be an/the optimal route to a science victory. Any meta discussion concerning optimization has to involve comparing one effective means to other effectives means. In order for the new alliance system to change things for the better, it has to be as worthwhile as the current trump card, at least in some circumstances. Otherwise, what is the standard by which it changes things for the better? That's it in a nutshell.

Now, if the course of the thread is just being changed to "let's set aside the meta and share excitement about the alliance system", then that's fine. I've said my piece. However, I respectfully submit that is actually a change in rails from the initial premise.

 

[Kyro]

I have played both tall and wide in Civ VI. I enjoy playing either way and like to mix things up.
I think that the alliance system will be beneficial to tall empires so if some people are not happy with the balance between tall and wide, it will help.

Whatever the case, I am excited about the possibilities.

Actually, it benefits both Tall and Wide equally well so there's no real advantage for tall here.

 

[Kyro]

I think if Alliances are to be powerful trade routes to Allies should have the benefit of internal trade routes in food and production as well to contend with warmongering's lack of opportunity cost.

Oh and AI shouldn't ally with a warmongering player unless it's a warmongering duo. Most of the conquering is done earlier on so I believe its entirely possible to have multiple allies later in the game while still keeping the benefit of warmongering.

 

[steveg700]

I think if Alliances are to be powerful trade routes to Allies should have the benefit of internal trade routes in food and production as well.

Oh and AI shouldn't ally with a warmongering player unless it's a warmongering duo.

One of the first things to occur to me is that these alliances emphasize sending trade routes internationally, something that has all but fallen to the wayside in deference to the food and production that internal trade routes generate out of the ether. Relying on alliances may well mean abandoning a level of growth and productivity players have to come to rely on. So, perhaps there should be asymmetrical alliances, such as food for gold.

I also have to wonder what can apply a soft or hard cap to the quantity of alliances, if anything. Maybe it's possible we'll see "infinite alliance spam". Of course, if it's only capped by the number of trade routes you have available...Well, which yields more trade routes, tall or wide?

 

[antimony]

Most of the conquering is done earlier on so I believe its entirely possible to have multiple allies later in the game while still keeping the benefit of warmongering.

"Start as a warmonger, end as a diplomat" is likely what the devs were hoping for when they built in the warmongering penalty that increases with era, it is too bad that it is not a very competitive strategy now, even for culture games where you get the largest benefit for being friendly to your neighbors.

That said it might be too soon to downplay the changes they've done in R&F. The nerfs to bare districts (we'll now need some buildings for trade routes, city state bonuses) are going to slow down the fastest victory times, perhaps opening the way for alternate strategies. The government plaza buildings and governor bonuses are also very powerful and new strategies may revolve around unlocking them early.

 

[nzcamel]

What Civ 5 did was make Tall not only a playable option, but a viable one. It attempted to tackle Tall vs Wide by making both viable, balanced options. Civ 6 simply ignores Tall playstyle completely in favor of wide. Civ 6 went completely backwards.

But why should a 4X game make strategy Y viable? It isn't what fans of the genre are especially interested in, and it isn't realistic to life either.

My 1 City can make up for 10 in some cases. Eventually yes, but I'm not commenting on whether they can, I'm talking about speed and the game will never let you grow them fast enough to compare to multiple cities in the same time frame. Speed is overrated now I'll agree on that but it still matters.

Of course your one good city can make up for 10 poor ones! And loyalty will increase that all the more so.
I guess that'll depend on the game speed one plays at. I play Marathon 95% of the time, so we could see or experience the game completely differently.

And they can get "slapped down left right n center in the late game" because of? ICS. It IS a necessary measure I agree but only because there are no proper reins on the number of cities a player can have. I must say though, I play up to tripled tech/civic costs and the reduced rate of inflation as a result is rather enjoyable and does not cause the game to speed up out of control.

I think you're doing this wrong.
What is a proper reign? This is a 4X game! Not some much more abstracted take on empire building.

I'll appreciate it if you don't oversimplify my analysis into "he's just not happy tall play is irrelevant now". There are a lot of issues being tackled here, and my initial drive was not to find out why "VI is worse than V in terms of favouring wide over tall" but why warmongering makes any other strategy redundant. I was also trying to trying to figure out why building/diplomatic aspects have become so weak and why I didn't find developing cities that fun anymore. It just so happens that everything traces back to the same root and I have to make it clear now because what you're saying makes me sound biased and I'm not comfortable with that because everything I've listed so far has been objective from a design perspective.

Oh I'm aware of your various issues with VI Kyro
I'll have to think about this more... but for much of the game warmongering should be the optimum strategy, if history is anything to go by. It is only a neutrality bought n paid for by dedicated vigilance and some useful terrain like the Swiss do and have that will keep any culture free of more aggressive Civs.

Edit: I get part of what drives you is the desire to play a perfect game in terms of not putting a foot wrong; and like Qin you want almost all the wonders. V let you do that much easier at least from the POV that you could cram them all into a couple of huge production cities. I'm not sure -if you're honest with yourself- that you'll forgive VI for taking that away from you.

 

[Kyro]

But why should a 4X game make strategy Y viable? It isn't what fans of the genre are especially interested in, and it isn't realistic to life either.

I think you're doing this wrong.
What is a proper reign? This is a 4X game! Not some much more abstracted take on empire building.

You should read up on what the 4X games genre is about, its origins and its key difference between war games before making ignorant statements like this.

Oh I'm aware of your various issues with VI Kyro
I'll have to think about this more... but for much of the game warmongering should be the optimum strategy, if history is anything to go by. It is only a neutrality bought n paid for by dedicated vigilance and some useful terrain like the Swiss do and have that will keep any culture free of more aggressive Civs.

After so long I finally I got you to reveal your true intentions. All that claim about choices in the game knowing full well the pure illusion of it all. You knew I was right when I said those choices were weak and you pretended they were not, all along because you wanted it to be this way. That's all I needed to hear from you.

I tire of people cherry picking history to try and validate their claims. You want to claim the historicity of warmongering? Have all warmongering empires crumble at some point of time. That's historic and the other side of the same coin. Oh wait that sounds like something Rise & Fall wanted to do.

Edit: I get part of what drives you is the desire to play a perfect game in terms of not putting a foot wrong; and like Qin you want almost all the wonders. V let you do that much easier at least from the POV that you could cram them all into a couple of huge production cities. I'm not sure -if you're honest with yourself- that you'll forgive VI for taking that away from you.

I'm sorry I don't see the link between how I like to play and the causes for the imbalances in the metagame currently. Care to elaborate?

Edit: I don't usually quote Wikipedia but here's what it says about the 4k Genre:
"4X computer games are noted for their deep, complex gameplay. Emphasis is placed upon economic and technological development, as well as a range of non-military routes to supremacy."

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Barrel of laughs in here, isn't it?

Let's be honest, none of us know yet whether having alliances will be optimal. We haven't played the game so it's unclear how all of the new systems and balance changes will work together. What was optimal in vanilla may be a poor strategy in R&F, we'll have to wait and see.

Well, I say we, I'll leave it to people that are much better at the game than me. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who will admit it, but I find it difficult to know what the optimal strategy is in my games. I'm sure critics will say I am only given the illusion of choice but it sure as hell feels like I'm having to make important strategic decisions as I play.

Ever the optimist, bring on those juicy alliances!

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Roger Caillois used four definitions of play/games:

• Agon
• Alea
• Mimicry
• Illinx

Only agon is about competition. Alea is about luck, mimicry is basically role playing and illinx is the hunt for Vertigo.

Caillois define games as Actives that are rule based, not that they are nessicarly competitive. Play is similar to games but lack rules.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about the new alliance system. Please get back to topic and cease this bickering
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

From what I have seen from the Livestream this week, Alliances have the potential to further strengthen Tall vs Wide......so another reason to like them & be excited by them. Other R&F features so far revealed also point towards a more balanced Tall vs Wide....the governors being the most obvious. However, back on topic, I am very much looking forward to alliances & emergencies....its going to make diplomacy even more exciting.

 

[pgm123]

Anyway in the current version of civilization VI there is not much gain from growing your cities because there are very few multiplier Buildings and the Buildings as they currently are with static modifiers don't care which city they belong to and the same can be said about districts. That cities are limited to one of each district type also hurt big cities because two small cities can potentially for example have two campuses, a big city can only have one campus. Population is pretty expensive to grow.

I'm curious if the new cards that give bonuses based on population size of the city with the district will make this more balanced.