1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Bye for now, Civ 6 - It was nice getting to know you

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by SCBrain, Nov 26, 2016.

  1. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    The real reason I liked the health system was it gave bonus resources a purpose. I never liked that V went back to having a resource that did absolutely nothing other than provide extra yields to a tile. Food resources would tend to increase health, and it was a way to manage and increase health throughout your empire without touching health buildings (though buildings would tend to have favorable interactions with them as well, like the Granary). The later patches for V that had buildings that increased the local yields of resource tiles always struck me as a rather poor substitute.
     
    Zuizgond and c4c6 like this.
  2. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    It could, but civics and resources were global, limiting your options for local management to constructing health buildings (which were the same for all cities) or that very limited form of indirect control. Once you'd settled on a basic health management approach in a particular playthrough, you were pretty much forced to make the same decisions for each city, which amounted to repetitive busywork. While health effects from terrain were essentially meaningless as they mostly rewarded you for doing what would have been good practice anyway - removing jungle, retaining productive forest.

    I agree with another poster that Civ V handled bonus resources badly - it was unfortunate that they didn't even contribute trade value in BNW (as they did in early let's play videos for the expansion during development). Despite disliking health in Civ IV I was originally quite enthusiastic about reinstating it in Civ VI, but the more I played that game the more I was reminded of what a tedious irritant it is. Exacerbated in Civ VI by the fact that workers don't cost population points, limiting one of the management tools for addressing health problems in Civ IV.
     
  3. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    I find it peculiar that you keep emphasizing the 'busywork' of building health buildings, as if it's somehow different from building aqueducts and sewer systems.

    If you're doing the same thing in every city, you're probably doing it wrong.

    Removing jungle is expensive in the early game. Also, unimproved forest tiles aren't productive; usually you're advised it's a waste of resources to grow to work them. Also, the usual advice is not to retain the forests but instead to chop your forests to hurry out an army, or to accelerate expansion, or to get important buildings built quickly, or to get your wonders built.
     
  4. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    It isn't different - as I said the core problem with the Civ IV approach is that it tried to add an adaptive element to an existing, fundamentally static system. It took existing busywork and added an extra layer of it, one of the worse examples of the game's common flaw of confusing system bloat with strategic complexity. Management for the sake of management is not strategic.

    Probably clumsy shorthand - you're basically going to do the same in every city of a given type. In practice that doesn't change much as there are only three broad city archetypes (production, food/GP Factory, commerce), and most of those are probably going to be of one type (commerce or GP farm depending on your strategy).

    Health is irrelevant in the early game - you have a buffer in bonus resources, health buildings and standing forests, and you don't want to colonise jungle early to begin with.

    Also probably clumsy shorthand on my part - you don't clearcut in one go precisely because you do need to have access to them to remove them for producing key projects. By 'productive forests' I intended the ones you keep around for that purpose. But that doesn't change the essential point, which is that health is not a relevant concern when choosing how to manage your terrain.
     
  5. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    It's definitely true that health is a non-factor in the early game, and depending on your playing style, might be totally irrelevant until industrialization... and of course a lot of games never get that far. So I'd agree that health could have been more meaningful.

    I think local happiness works really well in Civ IV though. Unlike Civ VI's amenity system, it's intuitive and easy to understand and explain; unlike Civ V's global happiness system, it is logical and corresponds to a meaningful real-world phenomenon. It also is very important all game long. Health could have been the same way in Civ IV. The system is fine--they just made the initial values a little too high, I think. It would have been especially nice if keeping forests around for health was a viable alternative to clearing them.
     
  6. Robo-Star

    Robo-Star Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    464
    There were different buildings for different cities - an aqueduct being preferable to a grocer in a city not generating wealth, for example - and then there were the options involved with building generated unhealthiness (building a coal plant to increase production versus keeping the city healthy to maximize growth, etc.).
     
  7. Athmos

    Athmos Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    236
    There is one real problem with 1UPT, and it is a fundamental one : AI can't play it. It makes human feel clever when they first think about placing a warrior in front of an archer blocking a mountain pass, and then the human come to the conclusion that there is actually no challenge at all left.

    I really disliked Civ V, I quite like Civ VI, but 1UPT is still a major problem, and the AI can't handle it at all. Should I really be able to conquer 3 AI neighbors using 2 warriors and 4 archers ? on emperors ?
     
  8. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    The AI is somehow worse at handling the system in Civ VI than it ever was in Civ V, but as your example demonstrates the issue is not 1UPT. You can beat your neighbours with a few archers because the ranged combat system is too strong. If archer units just had the Civ IV first strike ability and no ability to fire at range, let alone across multiple hexes, the AI would probably handle it much better.

    If, in Civ IV, bombardment was able to kill units outright and you could run over all your opponents with a giant stack of catapults and a couple of melee units to capture the city - and/or if the catapults had a range of 2 tiles so you could place a melee stack in front of them to protect them - would you conclude that the stack was the problem?

    It's a major disappointment that Civ VI didn't revise the ranged combat system - ranged attacks should only be available to city defences, naval bombardment and post-industrial artillery, and those should be weakened.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  9. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    Civ VI's system is certainly unnecessarily obscure. The Civ IV system is identical to that from older Civ games (even the effect of monarchy from older games is directly carried over in a civic tied to the same tech). It's a common complaint that the Civ V one isn't 'realistic' and the Civ IV one somehow is - neither is really true. Both are saddled with the unfortunate name 'happiness' - which isn't realistically applicable to either, as traditional Civ 'happiness' like that in Civ IV is a public order mechanic. People don't become happier with more troops repressing them.

    The issue is that they model two rather different things - traditional Civ happiness is about managing local public order. Civ V's version is about managing imperial overextension (think things like Crusader Kings' demesne system) - the larger your empire becomes, both spatially and in terms of overall population, the more difficult it is to manage, particularly when it includes elements from competing cultures (the happiness hit from occupation). It was a replacement for the maintenance/corruption system, not for local happiness.

    That became especially unfortunate when Civ V's expansions reintroduced a local happiness cap aimed at representing the earlier public order system. Really it was a branding rather than a functional problem with Civ V - call the mechanic something other than 'happiness', so people weren't comparing it directly with the previous system, and it may have been better-received (much as, conceptually, housing arguably works better than health as a name for what amounts to the same mechanic).

    I don't think it was actually the local management aspect of ha
     
  10. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    The confussion is entirely on your side here.
    Keeping forests instead of chopping them is thoroughly strategic. For production purposes as you mentioned and for health, both. Do I get the chopp hammers early and take an immediate benefit or do I keep sustained prod alternative with forests, chopp less of them, favor reforestation (very well used in slower speeds), and keep my cities healthier for growth and/or easier industralization.
    Planning on growing your cities larger when you have the needed food and happiness but not the needed health makes for a big consideration, as every extra point of pop will take +%50 food. Also strategic.
    Needless to say industralization excels in strategy concerning health; do I have surpluss health for Factories & CoalP? Do I have the required tech for the needed health buildings? How far away I am of these techs? Should I delay CoalPs for the moment, Do I try and get Nuclear power? May I adopt environmentalism? Strategy revolving health issues is all around the game. Entire city planning have taken place in games I know because of health issues; should I found cities closer to each other and keep them to 12-15 pop to get a feasible industrialization later on, with many productive cities and SP?
    I really fail to understand where your analisys came from.

    This I can understand, thankfully, but can´t concurr either. It is irrelevant early on in a good deal of games, but sometimes you will need to build some aqueducts into the classical age or prioritize health resources if isolated or flood terrain, etc.
     
    need my speed likes this.
  11. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    I believe housing is a hard capp for city pop in VI while health in IV isn´t. Hey, not even happines was a hard pop capp in IV. Still there were very little situations were you wanted to grow a city beyond it´s actual happiness threshold.
    While housing and health are similar concepts, I wouldn´t go further with it: building a factory in VI doesn´t alter your housing balance, for instance. As naming matters, health and housing get interestingly and differently enough modifiers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  12. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    Yes, it is. But as discussed that's not relevant to health - health doesn't factor into the decision to keep or remove them, it just passively rewards you for doing what you were doing anyway as long as the forest is there.

    Every one of which is either a global decision or - in the case of factories - barely a decision at all as it's entirely contingent on the health bonuses you have from global sources. I explicitly mentioned I was referring to managing health at local scales, which is just a matter of repetitively building the right buildings (no, grocer vs. aqueduct is not a strategic choice as it's dictated by what the city is already specialised towards, any more than it's a strategic choice to build a university instead of a factory in a science-focused city) and equally repetitively moving citizens to and from food production tiles. While decisions on where to found cities are one-of decisions per city. You could have implemented civics that promoted any one of these decisions with the pop cap system in the older games (just have factories, say, reduce your city's population cap).

    I'm fairly certain it's not a hard cap, as I've had housing warnings while still having a number displayed for 'turns till next pop' - it just reduces food income and so prevents city growth altogether if it results in food income being 0. But I could be wrong as the system, like all of Civ VI's systems, is inadequately explained and I still have relatively little experience with the game.
     
  13. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Whut? How can it not be relevant to health? You chopp you get less health, you don´t chopp you keep more health instead!! Health does absolutely factor in the decision to remove forests.

    You explicitly metioned, about the civ iv approach, to be: "...one of the worse examples of the game's common flaw of confusing system bloat with strategic complexity. ..."

    This is what I answered to. As civ iv approach is indeed very strategic, whereas decision impact localy, nationaly, worldwide, etc.


    Noted on this one. I feel your discouragement on not being able to rely over VI documentation. Pitty.
     
  14. Drakarska

    Drakarska Epic Dadness

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,553
    Location:
    Twilight Zone
    Um, Phil? Every 2 forests grants you a +1 health into your cities, up to a max of +4 health. Even early game in Civ IV, forests were relevant to health. And that's not even mentioning any forest preserves or environmental civics that stack with the benie's of forests. Not sure were you getting that forests don't have a health factor.


    Edit; Nevermind, you clarified in a later post. My bad bro. Carry on :D.
     
  15. DizzKneeLand33

    DizzKneeLand33 Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Kansas City
    And health indeed was relevant in the early game, at least at higher levels where I believe there were less starting bonuses for health (and happiness). Ricci's explanation of the system is dead on. You could also trade for health resources and so forth, so I actually found this to be an interesting mechanic. And, comparing that to Civ 3, it was a very nice improvement -- instead of 6/12 population hard cap before aqueducts (or settle on river) / hospitals, it was more incremental. Health was necessary to grow your Great Person farms and so forth.

    Having a cow AND a sheep mattered more than two cows. Resource diversification. The relevance of this diversification was eliminated in V and forward, which imho is a shame.

    I'm beginning to see what the differences are between IV and V/VI in my game play. Going back to IV for a while, I feel like a true builder again. This is what I always was in the game of Civ. With V, I feel like it is a war game. Sure, you can still be a builder, but it just doesn't feel the same. In IV I really was part of the world, the Civilization I was building I felt a part of, losing a city gave me that bad feeling in my stomach, like I let my people down. This feeling transferred from Civ 2 to 3 to 4. The tech quotes in IV are awesome, and contribute to the epic nature of the game.

    However, V feels like a war game. You lose a city, it's like losing a knight in chess. Yeah, it's not personal, it's just business. Maybe it's the 1 upt, maybe it's a combination of factors. So, I guess that would mean that I feel more "distant" from my Civilization that I create in V than I do when playing <= IV. The same is true of VI (although of course that could change in the next 3-5 years).

    It's not a criticism, it's just something I observed when playing my first BTS game in a few years this week. It was immediately different. It was Civ again. It was epic It was home.

    I'll still play VI once they fix the stupid stuff, and I'll try a game after this patch (I quit once my really fun game had the crash where you had to go to autosave and declare war -- what a stupid fix) and hope I don't have the crash again. But maybe it's just a different game now. Civ 4 will always be home. I'll still play 5 and 6 (and probably Civ 10 if they go that far).

    A final thought. V and VI seem like war games to me, but the AI handles war much worse (unmodded) than in IV. That's not a good combination. If others feel, too, that it is more of a war game than a builder game, the war AI should be even more of a focus than in prior iterations; instead, it seems to be less of a focus. I don't think that is just 1upt causing that. I mean the unmodded V still can't build a spaceship properly unless the planets align. I think it's a programmer/corporation focus issue.
     
  16. Pizzaspy

    Pizzaspy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    I wouldn't call it fundamental, because there are many other games with 1UPT that have solid AI. Either Firaxis doesn't prioritize it, or they did try and failed. It is an AI problem not a 1UPT problem.
     
    c4c6 likes this.
  17. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    404
    I wouldn't call it fundamental, too. AI can play 1UPT. Even complex 1UPT: different artillery ranges 2-5(ship), infantry(incl paratrooper&bridgeEngineer), reconnaisance, tank, anti-tank, anti-air, airDefense, strategical bombers, tactical bombers, fighters, air-, land- & seaTrsp, several ship types ... all unit types different rules, more parameters like initiative, entrenchment levels etc., a simplified trspSystem for fuel & ammunition ...
    PzGeneral needed of course overwhelming amounts of units to trash you, but given that, it surely did it: nothing brilliant, but all unit types were used properly and it did quite well in defending its objective cities (most 1hex tile), ok, less good in conquering objective cities. (A game which came on 6 x 1,44 MegaBytes including all graphics & animations. But then: my first chess game came in 8kiloBytes ROM and it played. 8kB: a wonder)

    It may be more difficult, but certainly not fundamental.

    BTW, I personally wouldn't mind waiting some minutes on turn end and think, some people would accept to wait several seconds ... I have not great hopes on 'brute force' algorithms - but if you insist in immediate response, very little can be achieved PC wise.
     
  18. malekithau

    malekithau Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    I've reached the same point as the OP. I may actually uninstall Civ6 which will be the first time I've never had a civ game installed. I just can't like it. I tried but yet another game destroyed by a carpet of religious units was enough for me.
     
    Jabulani likes this.
  19. Athmos

    Athmos Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    236
    If you can't be arsed with the religious stuff, just a quick DoW, kill the religious units, and that's over.

    Or, just, you know, deactivate religious victory ?
     
  20. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    Disabling religious victory doesn't stop the AI from spamming religious units and blocking all your tiles.
     

Share This Page