[NFP] Asymmetry in Civilization VI – A Small Monography

KingPiggyXXI

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
55
Well, Eleanor nor Sweden have production maluses, they just don't really have as much production as several other civilizations around that time. Asymmetry isn't comparing it to other civs (if that's the case, I can go ahead and say every civ is asymmetrical because they don't have as much production as Germany), it's comparing it to a blank civ with no abilities whatsoever. If you compare Eleanor or Sweden with a blank civ, they are strictly better. Even if they have to work to survive the early game, they're going to have an easier time surviving that a civ that has nothing.
Likewise, while the Immortals replacing the Swordsman have a different playstyle, you can more or less just ignore their ability to do ranged attacks and just use them like normal Swordsmen. In that case, you don't care about tactics nor skill.
In addition, I don't really think we should add Unique Units into the mix. There's a lot of Unique Units that have a higher production cost (like the Immortal mentioned) - while technically, that can be argued as being slightly asymmetrical, it's definitely not impactful enough to really change how you play, since it won't impact your entire game, or at least not as much as an ability would.
 

Mtgkuvalda

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
53
In civilization vi, there is no such thing as an "empty civilization", such a criterion is dead in the sixth part. Why did Georgia cause so much drama? For civilization V, her set of abilities would be very adequate. And there would be no complaints about the power of Philip II at all. At the same time, the Shoshone were considered the strongest because of the banal territory, which in today's Russia is only one of the strongest features. Therefore, the criterion of comparison with "blank civ" in the sixth part is extremely inappropriate.
Immortals are absolutely nightmarish to use as ordinary swordsmen. And of course you can ignore them, but however this unit is the most key and universal in this era, refusing it or playing by other rules is a much greater influence on the game than the same Swedish Nobel Prize. In addition to this, the classic era is the second after the start, this is the most important moment in building the foundation of the game. If this was a non-standard unit of the modern era, it would be a case that can be ignored, but here everything is different. It also definitely doesn't stand next to a small difference in production cost. Here it is banal even cities in defense get 6 less.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
773
In civilization vi, there is no such thing as an "empty civilization", such a criterion is dead in the sixth part.

Asymmetry in terms of gameplays is very specific and, in fact, every civ in Civ VI is asymetric, because they start with different bonuses.

In my first post, I explained the different definition I used for Civ 6, as here, on CivFanatics, when we talk about asymmetrical civs, we talk about Mali or Portugal, that kind of civs.

And, in my first post, I clearly explained my methodology: I compare each civ to an hypothetical, imaginary bland civ that can only do basic things shared by all/most civilizations: founding cities, building buildings, training units, founding a religion, etc... Imagine a civ without any CUA, LUA, UU or UI. If a civ has only bonuses compared to this hypothetical bland civ, then it's symmetrical. If it has maluses in some point (reduced production or science, cannot recruit specific great peoples, restriction about trade routes or district placement), then it's asymmetrical (in the very specific definition I used here).

Therefore, in this situation and with this definition, Freleanor is not asymmetrical, because she has only bonuses. Meager bonuses or bonuses that change drastically the gameplay, but technically it's not asymmetrical because if she doesn't use her bonuses she won't have a disadvantage compared to the hypothetical, uniques-less civ.
Same for Persia's Immortals: they only have bonuses (I didn't counted higher production cost though, because it's kind of irrelevant).

As for Sweden, I explained why I think it's asymmetrical, but a lot of people disagreed.

Having a slower start is not an asymmetrical element, it's a design of the civ. Sure, it's more common in asymmetrical civs, but not necessarily.

At least it's my analysis (and since it's my monography I'm obviously better than you at this (it's a joke, of course, as I said, I have no credential prooving my worth))
 

Mtgkuvalda

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
53
I agree about Eleanor. However, immortals are not "just bonuses" at all. This is a very weak swordsman who can shoot. And for an archer, it is too expensive, requires iron-and with all the same strength of a long-range attack. In fact, Persia simply does not have swordsmen! Immortals offer to look at themselves carefully and determine how they can be used effectively. Ironically, they are very mortal and have great difficulty resisting the cavalry. The scenario of Alexander's campaign from the supplement looks like a joke because of this.
A number of people also consider Okihtcitaw a malus for early Cree scouting, at such an early stage, increasing the cost of a scout means a lot. But here, the unit is definitely superior to the original in all respects, and does not offer a different game. At first sight... On the other hand, the purpose of the scout is exclusively exploration, with almost no calculation for the fight. With Okihtcitaw, you can, by pumping a few on a city-state with a social card for triple experience, surprise your neighbor with super-maneuverable units with a strength of 40 in a very early game. A different strategy that cancels the usual one, because you have to pay for it with more meager early research (when just a couple of moves means a lot, competitors can overtake you as the first to meet a city-state or steal potentially your tribal settlement). Also included in this group were the chariots of Egypt, which cancel the rush by knights, but now they sit in their own separate niche.
 
Last edited:

KingPiggyXXI

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
55
I personally think that we shouldn't consider Unique Units for asymmetry. Although Immortals are incredibly impactful in their time, they're just impactful for two eras (which will become one with Men-at-Arms). Their lower combat strength and higher cost is a notable malus, but it's not a huge malus - it's not something that you'll pretty much plan your game around, and it's not something that'll be there for the entire game.

Also, if we were to include Unique Units, I can probably argue that all Unique Units with a higher cost or lower Combat Strength should be added as well. The Aztecs, Cree, Hungary, Inca, India, Indonesia, Korea, Macedon, Nubia, Ottomans (Suleiman), Persia (as mentioned), Rome, Russia, Spain - all of these civilizations can also be added to the Asymmetrical list. Then we can also add in Greece (Unique District can only be placed on hills) and Korea again (Unique District can have lower Science yields in specific situations, also only on hills) to the list for their Unique District.

Overall, I think the only factor for asymmetry should be the Leader Ability and the Civilization Ability, maybe the Unique Infrastructure. If we include the units, we'll have a large list of civilizations whose asymmetry is arguably not very impactful at all, since they're only going to be asymmetrical for an era at most.
 

Linklite

Emperor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,378
If you think a UU makes a civ asymmetric, your bar is far too low. Having immortals doesn't significantly alter playstyle. It may not even effect much at all, or it may prompt you to use horsemen instead or at the very most, delay warfare for a while to get the upgraded melee.

Using horsemen instead of swordsmen does not count as game altering and therefore is not asymmetric. If you want examples of asymmetric, look to Babylon or Mali. You have to fundamentally change how you play throughout the game. Granted they are the most clearcut and drastic versions, but still, having to use a slightly faster but more expensive unit than usual to do the exact same thing does not count as significantly different.
 

Mtgkuvalda

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
53
If you think a UU makes a civ asymmetric, your bar is far too low. Having immortals doesn't significantly alter playstyle. It may not even effect much at all, or it may prompt you to use horsemen instead or at the very most, delay warfare for a while to get the upgraded melee.

Using horsemen instead of swordsmen does not count as game altering and therefore is not asymmetric.

Immortals aren't a bad unit, they're just different. It doesn't force you to give up swordsmen, it teaches you to fight differently. In a battle with a human, not a computer, this will be especially important. Replace it with riders? Then it turns out that the choice of two powerful units of the classic era will be limited for you. What if there are problems with horses on the map? As for the influence of the unit on a limited number of epochs-do not compare the first epochs, when the foundation of the empire is formed, with all subsequent ones. The importance of this period is colossal, often perfectly completing the Middle Ages, you can simply not play further, the victory is already clearly in your pocket. By the way, the whole "assymmetry" of Mali is exclusively in the first era of stagnation, after then it is a banal high-performance nation, just with a different source of production. Malus just as quickly becomes invisible as the lifetime of a unique unit, the era of solid pluses begins. Mali doesn't even have a penalty for producing something that can't be bought - miracles!
 
Top Bottom