Barbarian Scenario (February 2021) Developer Livestream Discussion

[Jkchart]

People who play monarchy: what three military cards were you even using at that point in the game?

Limes, the one that boosts defense/city attack, and the one that gives a gold % discount. If I run monarchy it's because i need a strong defense, usually go Classical Republic or Theocracy depending on the situation. But Monarchy did have it's uses for turtling.

 

[King of Prussia]

People who play monarchy: what three military cards were you even using at that point in the game?

I used it in dom games to make troops faster, the free amenity from garrison, saving upkeep, sometimes loyalty card, unit upgrades, and building walls. Depends on who i am playing and the state of my cities or the ones i conquered. It often timed well with what i was planning on doing.


I quite often used it as a temp pick until i got Theo for the faith discount and combat boost for religious units. That tends to be the time i start mass building walls in any city that might need them or for the tourism later.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I rarely use monarchy but when I do, I'm usually running +amenities from garrisoned units, -1 gold maintanence, and +100% production to walls (sometimes swapped for -50% gold cost to upgrade). Still, it's generally a stopgap government until I get one of the other two (although that may no longer be the case)

 

[acluewithout]

Oligarchy was the weakest gov before, precisely because it had such a poor spread of cards. That actually seemed very balanced to me, because you were trading better cards slot for the combat bonus (and the combat was only ever situationally useful). Basically, if you wanted warmonger, and wanted the combat bonus, then Oligarchy gave you a tough (but interesting) choice because the slots we so bad.

Autocracy was usually the strongest government. Early game, military slots are super useful, and Diplo slots not useful (they get better in the mid game) so Autocracy was great generally but also specifically for tall play. The extra yields and bonus for wonders was just a nice bonus (although, hardly a big deal if you’re chopping wonders anyway). Now Autocracy has the terrible oligarchy spread. It’s a poor gov for growth now.

Do the two military slots synergise with Oligarchy’s combat bonus? They sure do, and that’s part of the problem. They synergise way too much. Choosing Oligarchy is just going to be a no-brainer and just push early warmongering harder. At least before you had to balance maybe using Autocracy to grow your army, then flipping to Oligarchy for the war or to grab a legacy card. Now you just start in Oligarchy and stay in cruise control until the mid game.

Monarchy is a bit different. Monarchy has always been a bit underpowered and I think the changes make Monarchy much stronger. But I was ok with where Monarchy was - a bit weaker, but it came earlier and has great policy cards at Divine Right so it worked out and there was more than enough good Red policy cards. This is too much of a buff in my view.

I get people aren’t going to agree with me on this. FXS’s changes actually seem pretty consistent with the majority of the feedback they’ve had on Autocracy, Oligarchy and Monarchy. I note that streamers also seem to heavily favour Oligarchy (hilariously because they think it has a good card spread) and dislike Monarchy (because they under value Red Cards). So I can see why these changes have been made. But the change cuts across the original design, which I actually think has the better balance and approach, and overall makes the choices around governments less interesting because Oligarchy is now just always awesome and Monarchy isn’t such a hard choice.

It’s a pity FXS keep tweaking the game to remove complexity. No spying on Allies is the worst. Before, you had this great “frenemy” dynamic, where you could Ally with someone precisely because you want to neutralise them as a war threat and spy on them; or you might have a Civ you want a good relationship with, but you might then have second thoughts and want to spy on them. Now you choose Allies, and the game basically enforces YOU WILL BE FRIENDS AND BE NICE TO YOUR ALLIES!

The Oligarchy / Autocracy changes are similar. Before you were choosing between governments that were situationally useful for different things. Want to warmonger? Well, you might use Oligarchy or Autocracy. Sometimes you might even use Classical Republic to maintain happiness and get more GGPs. But now it’ll just be “pick Oligarchy, it’s the best for War”.

All the changes combining food and housing have a similar problem. Before you had to balance housing and food production. Get it wrong, and no growth. Now bonuses that give you one usually just give you the other (eg religious beliefs), so growing tall really is just much less of a challenge now.

Sorry. I know a lot of these changes are popular, and maybe that’s the point. But I feel like there is a lot of good design which FXS are just ditching because people’s knee jerk reaction is that X isn’t good because it doesn’t immediately come with Y and Z as well. eg Oligarchy is dumb because it’s not the government with the military slots; Autocracy sucks because too many military cards and no Diplo cards (ignoring that Diplo cards are weak early game); monarchy sucks because it’s weaker than merchant republic (ignoring Monarchy comes earlier and the civic has good cards); military cards suck because they don’t have yield bonuses (ignoring military cards buff economies in other ways by increasing happiness and loyalty, buffing movement, making harbours cheaper).

 

[The googles do nothing]

Autocracy which features the image of a Roman Emperor now fits the abilities of Rome even less.

I think that barb camps only spawn a limited number of units. I wonder if that will stay the same and you risk paying a barb camp with few units to attach someone.

 

[El Caballerion]

Hey CivFanatics,

I'm returning to CIV VI after about a year hiatus, refusing to get the NFP until it had some good, new content and was on sale. The barbarians mode seems really interesting.

Question... can you ONLY play the barbarian game mode, as the only in-game mode? For instance, I believe Monopoly/Corporation play is a game mode, so can these two elements be played simultaneously?

 

[canadamufc]

Question... can you ONLY play the barbarian game mode, as the only in-game mode? For instance, I believe Monopoly/Corporation play is a game mode, so can these two elements be played simultaneously?

Yes, all game modes can be played simultaneously. You can pick all of them if you like.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Autocracy which features the image of a Roman Emperor now fits the abilities of Rome even less.

The "cover art" of Autocracy is a statue of Augustus, the famous Augustus of Prima Porta.

Augustus, as the first Roman Emperor (first princeps, to be precise), was basically an Autocrat (dictatorship), a government centralizer (more bureaucratic rule, and direct rule over Provinces), and a builder (all these huge construction in Rome).

Note that how these characteristics of Augustus have a nearly perfect match with the characteristic of Autocracy - it has a wonder building bonus, it has a yield bonus in governmental buildings which implying a centralized rule, not to say it is named "Autocracy" ("one man's rule").

The new card arrangement may not synergize with Rome, but overall Autocracy is with the theme of Roman Empire.

 

[acluewithout]

One more thing. As much as a lot of the Gov and Policy Changes really annoy me, moving the Colonial Cards to Diplo could be a really, really good change. The game has this weird dynamic where it’s clearly designed around settling foreign continents in the mid game, but the rewards just aren’t there. Making those colonial cards Diplo not economic maybe makes Colonial expansion a bit more viable by letter you combine the colonial cards with more vanilla economic cards.

Ages ago I’d suggested having a Diplo Policy Card that gives Colonial Cities Diplo Favour. This is obviously a very different solution, but sort of get at the same point in another way. ie linking Colonialism with Diplomacy / Diplocards.

I think the only thing missing is a another government / purple district focused on Colonial Cities and or a Governor focused on Colonial Cities. Guess we’ll see what happens.

 

[greenOak]

Oligarchy was the weakest gov before, precisely because it had such a poor spread of cards. That actually seemed very balanced to me, because you were trading better cards slot for the combat bonus (and the combat was only ever situationally useful). Basically, if you wanted warmonger, and wanted the combat bonus, then Oligarchy gave you a tough (but interesting) choice because the slots we so bad.

Autocracy was usually the strongest government. Early game, military slots are super useful, and Diplo slots not useful (they get better in the mid game) so Autocracy was great generally but also specifically for tall play. The extra yields and bonus for wonders was just a nice bonus (although, hardly a big deal if you’re chopping wonders anyway). Now Autocracy has the terrible oligarchy spread. It’s a poor gov for growth now.

Do the two military slots synergise with Oligarchy’s combat bonus? They sure do, and that’s part of the problem. They synergise way too much. Choosing Oligarchy is just going to be a no-brainer and just push early warmongering harder. At least before you had to balance maybe using Autocracy to grow your army, then flipping to Oligarchy for the war or to grab a legacy card. Now you just start in Oligarchy and stay in cruise control until the mid game.

Monarchy is a bit different. Monarchy has always been a bit underpowered and I think the changes make Monarchy much stronger. But I was ok with where Monarchy was - a bit weaker, but it came earlier and has great policy cards at Divine Right so it worked out and there was more than enough good Red policy cards. This is too much of a buff in my view.

I get people aren’t going to agree with me on this. FXS’s changes actually seem pretty consistent with the majority of the feedback they’ve had on Autocracy, Oligarchy and Monarchy. I note that streamers also seem to heavily favour Oligarchy (hilariously because they think it has a good card spread) and dislike Monarchy (because they under value Red Cards). So I can see why these changes have been made. But the change cuts across the original design, which I actually think has the better balance and approach, and overall makes the choices around governments less interesting because Oligarchy is now just always awesome and Monarchy isn’t such a hard choice.

It’s a pity FXS keep tweaking the game to remove complexity. No spying on Allies is the worst. Before, you had this great “frenemy” dynamic, where you could Ally with someone precisely because you want to neutralise them as a war threat and spy on them; or you might have a Civ you want a good relationship with, but you might then have second thoughts and want to spy on them. Now you choose Allies, and the game basically enforces YOU WILL BE FRIENDS AND BE NICE TO YOUR ALLIES!

The Oligarchy / Autocracy changes are similar. Before you were choosing between governments that were situationally useful for different things. Want to warmonger? Well, you might use Oligarchy or Autocracy. Sometimes you might even use Classical Republic to maintain happiness and get more GGPs. But now it’ll just be “pick Oligarchy, it’s the best for War”.

All the changes combining food and housing have a similar problem. Before you had to balance housing and food production. Get it wrong, and no growth. Now bonuses that give you one usually just give you the other (eg religious beliefs), so growing tall really is just much less of a challenge now.

Sorry. I know a lot of these changes are popular, and maybe that’s the point. But I feel like there is a lot of good design which FXS are just ditching because people’s knee jerk reaction is that X isn’t good because it doesn’t immediately come with Y and Z as well. eg Oligarchy is dumb because it’s not the government with the military slots; Autocracy sucks because too many military cards and no Diplo cards (ignoring that Diplo cards are weak early game); monarchy sucks because it’s weaker than merchant republic (ignoring Monarchy comes earlier and the civic has good cards); military cards suck because they don’t have yield bonuses (ignoring military cards buff economies in other ways by increasing happiness and loyalty, buffing movement, making harbours cheaper).

It's pretty arrogant calling these popular opinions "knee jerk reactions" and act like all your opinions about game balance and complexity are correct. Most of these people who hold such opinions (myself included) have a much different view on the current balance of the game.

IMO:

Oligarchy has pretty much always been better than autocracy for warmongering. The bonuses to xp and combat strength were simply better than the extra slot. To me, classical Republic vs autocracy (if not warmongering) was always the more interesting choice, usually going with classical republic. I don't think the re-worked governments change much, although I do view the diplo slot as more valuable than the military slot post medieval faires.

Naturally, I also reject autocracy usually being the strongest government. Oligarchy is better for war, and lean toward classical republic in peaceful games. I view economic slots as superior to military cards at all points in the game.

The "frenemy" dynamic never existed because you can always renew friendships and alliances on the turn they run out. You could (and still can) piss off a befriended AI as much as you please with no consequences. Only thing the no spying on allies thing did was prevent you from exploiting a civ for both the alliance and espionage benefits. I could care less about this one, but let's not act like "frenemies" was ever a thing in civ 6.

Military slots aren't valuable in peaceful games because you never need to run very many cards at once, and the rare times you need multiple military cards, they are easily covered by wildcard slots. In such games, loyalty bonuses are usually useless, and movement isn't a big deal when not warring (especially with golden age monumentality giving builders more movement).

Theocracy is at most ten turns after Monarchy and is preferable to monarchy. Depending on whether you get guilds before or after divine right, theocracy is one or two civics away from monarchy (note feudalism should always be researched before divine right).

While combining housing & food bonuses together reduces complexity, it helps with balance. The rewards for growing big cities are small, and making it difficult to do so would make it an even more unappealing strategy.

 

[Pietato]

People who play monarchy: what three military cards were you even using at that point in the game?

That harbour/encampment card, limes, conscription, amenities one, unit discount if building units, upgrade discount, barb killing, logistics, pillaging, increased strategic resources for selling...

There are good Military cards, now. It is different to 2 years ago.

Edit - forgot pillaging.

I could care less about this one

Could NOT care less.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That harbour/encampment card, limes, conscription, amenities one, unit discount if building units, upgrade discount, barb killing, logistics, increased strategic resources for selling...

There are good Military cards, now. It is different to 2 years ago.

Fair, I probably do play with a mindset from a couple or three patches ago.

 

[Pietato]

Fair, I probably do play with a mindset from a couple or three patches ago.

Well if you are at peace, not building Harbours, unable to sell strategic resources, and do not need to improve much with builders (logistics), then you end up with wasted slots. With this patch though, that problem was solved (and more).

 

[Linklite]

Hey CivFanatics,

I'm returning to CIV VI after about a year hiatus, refusing to get the NFP until it had some good, new content and was on sale. The barbarians mode seems really interesting.

Question... can you ONLY play the barbarian game mode, as the only in-game mode? For instance, I believe Monopoly/Corporation play is a game mode, so can these two elements be played simultaneously?

You can play as many of the modes as you like in any combination you like. However, i wouldn't do too many, and be careful of combining M&Cs with other modes, particularly SS. They're OP as it is, SS makes it even worse...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well if you are at peace, not building Harbours, unable to sell strategic resources, and do not need to improve much with builders (logistics), then you end up with wasted slots. With this patch though, that problem was solved (and more).

It just always felt that even in those rare times I am still warring around then, Theocracy is just around the corner anyhow. I probably overvalue some of the econ cards and hate giving up the slots. Monarchy SHOULD be strong, I mean it was a obviously a very important and "popular" gov in history.

 

[The googles do nothing]

There are good Military cards, now. It is different to 2 years ago.

Raid the pillaging card as well.

Well if you are at peace,

With the Incite Barbarians being at peace even at peace you will need red cards. At least I hope...

The "cover art" of Autocracy is a statue of Augustus, the famous Augustus of Prima Porta.

The one chance i got to tour the Vatican museum that section was closed.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

People who play monarchy: what three military cards were you even using at that point in the game?

Probably not Playing optimally, but I use the Conscription card, the one that reduces upgrade costs, and Veterancy. I mostly picked Monarchy for the housing and the extra points towards envoys .

 

[Stringer1313]

I need to weigh in and say I'm strongly in favor of not being able to spy on Allies. Alliances are way too incredibly easy to get and make the AI so manipulatable. There should be a cost.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Probably not Playing optimally, but I use the Conscription card, the one that reduces upgrade costs, and Veterancy. I mostly picked Monarchy for the housing and the extra points towards envoys .

I usually debate myself for several minutes between a few of the cards, weigh the pro and cons as the cards relate to my situation, then say "screw it" and just pick the one that gives you unit upkeep.

 

[Pietato]

I need to weigh in and say I'm strongly in favor of not being able to spy on Allies. Alliances are way too incredibly easy to get and make the AI so manipulatable. There should be a cost.

You realise your 5 allies cannot spy on you, either, right? This change made alliances STRONGER.