[GS] Changes that wish to be in GS

[Stringer1313]

Yes please.

I don't get why the AI, even when friendly/allied, are all too happy to destroy a city state I'm a suzerain of.

At least make this an automatic grievance.

 

[acluewithout]

Harbors moved to shipbuilding will keep me playing...

It looks like Harbours and Coastal Cities are getting buffed a little. If Harbours are made more valuable, that will offset their current opportunity cost a little.

Civ VI does have this overall odd dynamic though. Basically, to get the most out of the game, it feels you play the game efficiently - but not too efficiently, otherwise the games over and you’ve not used any mechanics.

I played some Khmer last month and had a blast building tall cities. It wasn’t role playing - I was following a tall city strategy, and there were some interesting strategic choices. But I also thought as I was playing “I could just spam campuses and this game would be over”.

Playing with Harbours and Navy feels like that. There is lots to do, and indeed lots of strategy, but it’s such a subpar approach overall you sort of wonder why you bother.

Likewise, games around mid or late game mechanics or strategies are a little rough. Yes, you can conquer the world with Spanish muskets. But it’s so much more efficient to do it with Spanish Knights - the same Knights everyone else has - that again you wonder why you’re bithering.

I’m not even saying this needs to be changed completely. I’m okay with playing a weaker strategy and trying to win, and I think the game can legitimately be designed like that. I hate the idea of all Civs being balanced - some should be weaker or stronger than others. The philosophy is something I think EU4 gets right. ...but, there’s a limit. England v Netherlands, or Gidget, or Maori doesn’t both me.

England v Aztec, Sythia and Zulu annoys me more. Harbours (perhaps) not being as good as Commercial Hubs is okay; but Campuses being so strong and so early starts to annoy me a little.

 

[AriochIV]

Iron and Copper are very common metals. It seems that civilizations throughout history never really had a shortage. In modern times we recycle most of it.

A resource doesn't have to be rare to be strategic; it just has to be part of the limiting factor on production. Even as late as World War II, there were iron shortages, scrap iron drives amongst the public, and projects that had to be altered or canceled because of lack of iron.

 

[The googles do nothing]

My changes:
Longer Tech Tree in All ages
Promoted Units increase Support Costs
Remove trading Luxuries and add them to trade routes
Make all Support Units siege units
Make sure my empire doesn't get screwed because there is no niter anywhere close...
Make sure all UU's can be upgraded to
Map script that is both a Pangea and Island Plates.
Map scripts that takes advantage of canals
Citizens working districts do not require amenities

 

[nzcamel]

A resource doesn't have to be rare to be strategic; it just has to be part of the limiting factor on production. Even as late as World War II, there were iron shortages, scrap iron drives amongst the public, and projects that had to be altered or canceled because of lack of iron.

SO what you're saying is... ( ) ...wonders & projects should cost strategic resources too? I like it!! Lol

 

[Victoria]

England v Aztec, Sythia and Zulu annoys me more

England vs Mapuche, Ghengis and Alex I find worse

 

[Alexis Layton]

I wish they fix auto unit cycling to (a) remove the double selection jump, and (b) stop jumping the map around so much and go to near units in preference to far ones. They had this working once long ago in an earlier generation.

 

[Equilin]

I wish they increase the number of tech/civic cost limit, to allow long, long games with mods for players who desire it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but please let us name our leaders instead of using the default name.

 

[Turrdy]

I wish they fix auto unit cycling to (a) remove the double selection jump, and (b) stop jumping the map around so much and go to near units in preference to far ones. They had this working once long ago in an earlier generation.

That's the reason why i turned off auto unit cycling as a whole...

 

[Metecury]

Unit gifting to city states

More units

Different pace for production and tech (faster production lower tech) to properly expand and war in all eras

colonization mechanics

something to limit the snowballing effect giving a fighting chance to ai/players behind, there is a point you reach where there is simply no point in continuing the game because the outcome if foretold.

 

[nzcamel]

That's the reason why i turned off auto unit cycling as a whole...

Only a half solution at best. It still doesn't break the cycle

Unit gifting to city states

More units

Different pace for production and tech (faster production lower tech) to properly expand and war in all eras

colonization mechanics

something to limit the snowballing effect giving a fighting chance to ai/players behind, there is a point you reach where there is simply no point in continuing the game because the outcome if foretold.

And something that allows your allied CS's units to pass through your territory, without levying them.

 

[pgm123]

To get the entertainment inspiration you must have finished construction, that’s very restrictive
Or to get the frigate eureka you must have killed a unit with a musket man
There are plenty of others where if for example you want to beeline printing, getting the eureka off knights may not be worth it (playing peacefully)... because knights are not much use to you and it takes longer to get knights than the inspiration value

OK. That I understand. I was just confused because I wasn't talking about Eurekas. I was talking about re-designing the tech tree to make Celestial Navigation a prerequisite for Mathematics.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Dear FXSanta,

I’ve been a good boy this year. Please tone down your loyalty constraints upon city-settling, so that we can actually make colonies. I don’t think it makes sense that the mere act of far-settling should be the heavy factor in determining a city’s loyalty. Sometimes I don’t even settle that far, but somehow having more neighboring cities automatically makes them loyalty-bullies. I wish you could just build the loyalty system upon the happiness pressure and revolt mechanics you had in Civ 5. Actions and public opinion should matter more than mere settling location.

Sincerely,

A player that has no interest in playing England and Spain.

I like that loyalty acts as a deterrent to forward settling, and I do think there is some validity to using that as a game mechanic, but I think that amenities should play a FAR larger role. Cities with negative amenities should lose a little loyalty per turn, and cities with a lot of negative amenities should have a massive loyalty malus. Starvation should also have an enormous impact on loyalty, and overcrowding should also play into a bit.

I just think they have the mechanics in place to make it far more interesting than it is, but they opted to use it pretty much for one thing and one thing only.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

I like that loyalty acts as a deterrent to forward settling, and I do think there is some validity to using that as a game mechanic, but I think that amenities should play a FAR larger role. Cities with negative amenities should lose a little loyalty per turn, and cities with a lot of negative amenities should have a massive loyalty malus. Starvation should also have an enormous impact on loyalty, and overcrowding should also play into a bit.

I just think they have the mechanics in place to make it far more interesting than it is, but they opted to use it pretty much for one thing and one thing only.

Did you read @Victoria 's Loyalty guide?
What you want is actually already in the game. Unfortunately (maybe?) population pressure is heavily dominant but all is in place.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Did you read @Victoria 's Loyalty guide?
What you want is actually already in the game. Unfortunately (maybe?) population pressure is heavily dominant but all is in place.

Yes, it is in the game, but my point (which I didn't state very clearly, sorry) was that everything else is fairly negligible compared to population pressure. I think a very unhappy city should be in very real danger of revolting no matter how many citizens are in or near it...a maximum malus of -6 from unhappiness means that it can be ignored 99% of the time. Same with starvation - a maximum malus of -4 means that even when stacked with the maximum unhappiness you're only dealing with -10, which can be ignored everywhere but fringe cities, and even there is almost entirely counterbalanced by simply plopping a governor there.

Right now literally nothing can make the core cities in my empire rebel - nothing. Even my fringe cities, I only have to worry about foreign citizen pressure - nothing else. If the existing numbers were tweaked, it would be a much deeper system.

Don't get me wrong, loyalty is one of my favorite additions as it fits my builder playstyle wonderfully (and allows me a way to expand my empire without having to go to war) - it just could be so much more with the smallest amount of effort.

 

[steveg700]

It looks like Harbours and Coastal Cities are getting buffed a little. If Harbours are made more valuable, that will offset their current opportunity cost a little.

Civ VI does have this overall odd dynamic though. Basically, to get the most out of the game, it feels you play the game efficiently - but not too efficiently, otherwise the games over and you’ve not used any mechanics.

I played some Khmer last month and had a blast building tall cities. It wasn’t role playing - I was following a tall city strategy, and there were some interesting strategic choices. But I also thought as I was playing “I could just spam campuses and this game would be over”.

Playing with Harbours and Navy feels like that. There is lots to do, and indeed lots of strategy, but it’s such a subpar approach overall you sort of wonder why you bother.

Likewise, games around mid or late game mechanics or strategies are a little rough. Yes, you can conquer the world with Spanish muskets. But it’s so much more efficient to do it with Spanish Knights - the same Knights everyone else has - that again you wonder why you’re bithering.

I’m not even saying this needs to be changed completely. I’m okay with playing a weaker strategy and trying to win, and I think the game can legitimately be designed like that. I hate the idea of all Civs being balanced - some should be weaker or stronger than others. The philosophy is something I think EU4 gets right. ...but, there’s a limit. England v Netherlands, or Gidget, or Maori doesn’t both me.

England v Aztec, Sythia and Zulu annoys me more. Harbours (perhaps) not being as good as Commercial Hubs is okay; but Campuses being so strong and so early starts to annoy me a little.

What you're sort of groping around at is the basic problem with 4X games having a "multiple paths to victory" setup. People continue to this day to misconceptualize this turn of phrase to praise such a game for its open, sandbox style of play. In actuality, the opposite is true, and each of those paths involve beelining to victory in a very rote fashion. As you say, if you are pursuing a science victory, the best thing for you to do is decide on that course early, and then focus all efforts on it, and you can beat the AI rapidly because Firaxis will not program an AI to be that boring...err, I mean "efficient". :

What they did with historic moments in R&F is similar to what I had earlier suggested for a victory condition, wherein you win by being the first to accumulate sets of milestones. In this way, you can amass a set of domination milestones, scientific milestones, and so on. That is the true "multiple paths to victory", where a civilization is now better off excelling in many (but not necessarily all) areas.

But Civ continues to be dogged by much more basic problems, namely the AI not knowing how to play the game. Forget overwhelming the world with optimized strategy, let's just try to get the AI to a point where it isn't wasting time building workers just to have a nation that consists predominantly of vast farmlands, or prioritizing wonders when it's under heavy attack, or how not to spend most of a game in a dark age.

 

[NegativeZero]

I'd like to see promotions from natural wonders being displayed within the unit's stats/promotion area (not just in combat screens).

9:40 in the Maori game-play video shows there haven't been any changes on that front.

I'd also assume that the Natural Wonder promotions still don't carry over to units after they've been upgraded.

 

[steveg700]

I like that loyalty acts as a deterrent to forward settling, and I do think there is some validity to using that as a game mechanic, but I think that amenities should play a FAR larger role. Cities with negative amenities should lose a little loyalty per turn, and cities with a lot of negative amenities should have a massive loyalty malus. Starvation should also have an enormous impact on loyalty, and overcrowding should also play into a bit.

I just think they have the mechanics in place to make it far more interesting than it is, but they opted to use it pretty much for one thing and one thing only.

Well, the odd thing about amenities is that they're frequently things to which the vast majority of a populace would not have access to anyways, at least before the rise of a middle class. Kind of like how the Renaissance meant nothing to most people around at the time.

But in game terms, I would like to see trading of luxuries to be tied into, y'know, trade routes. I know, silly thought that, but shouldn't you actually be able to reach Indonesia with a ship to access its spices?

And like many people, I would like multiple copies of a luxury to have more value than simply for trade, even if indirectly through things like policies.

Also, it would be cool if a disaster could actually reveal a resource instead of destroying them.

 

[nzcamel]

I'd like to see promotions from natural wonders being displayed within the unit's stats/promotion area (not just in combat screens).

Agreed.

I'd also assume that the Natural Wonder promotions still don't carry over to units after they've been upgraded.

I don't mind if that doesn't happen. To me the natural wonders offer a bonus mostly to those who settle near them; so it seems a bit unfair that anyone who can pass through gets the benefit of the promotion ones for the whole game. I like that - it's just that unit in it's current form; and therefore the only Civ who is going to get that benefit for most of the game is the one that settled near the wonder.

Of course on that, it would be nice to see the AI prioritise natural wonders when settling. They often seem to settle all around nat wonders and never utilise their bonuses much at all.