Civ VI Civs - Failing in Uniqueness

[acluewithout]

I think Civ VI mostly has the balance right.

I like that some Civs do allow you to play in totally unique ways (say, Aztecs), but I also like (and actually prefer) having more ‘vanilla’ civs with which you can just explore the core mechanics more and which don’t feel gimmicky (England, Germany, Rome).

I also like some unique abilities repeating between Civs with slight variations, because it lets you explore that particular mechanic more. Look at Brazil and Australia for example. Both give you super-duper adjacencies early (from rainforests and appeal respectively), but then force you to decide whether to give up those adjacencies as you develop your cities (by chopping rainforests or building mines). But there a subtle differences between the two.

Lastly, I like how some civs are more powerful than others. It gives me another way to control difficulty - both in the sense that I can play a stronger or weaker civ myself, but also in that the computer (my opponent) gets stronger or weaker civs. Alexander, for example. I find him OP to play as - just boring - but he’s a hoot to play against, especially if you let him get his two uniques and then pick a fight with him. I don’t like civs that are “duds”, but I don’t feel there any duds anymore after the last patch.

My only concern here is that between each Civ’s unique abilities, abilities from governments, abilities for pathenons, abilities from government buildings, abilities from dedications, and abilities from governors, that you end up with so many “unique mechanics” (ie rule breaking) that the game becomes a mess and nothing feels particularly flavourful. If anything, that’s a reason to have more vanilla or passive bonuses, so each player can control how complex the game becomes.

 

[OneMoreTurnPerTile]

Also, when you played an AI in Civ V, you had a kind of snapshot understanding of what your rival could do. A lot of rival civ's with their little pu-pu plater designs just sort of run together. Oh, there's Poland. What do they do again? Um....

Really agree with this statement. Its not only that the current Civs seem interchangeable to play, but to play against as well. I think a major reason why I feel that way is that diplomacy feels so rote, regardless of the other civs in a given game.

 

[clapyourhands]

I think the design philosophy for VI places a much larger emphasis on subtlety and the holistic evaluation of a civ as a whole than V.

V had one rule-bending ability per civ that was their “gimmick”, a single bonus that differentiated them from everyone else that you can’t get by playing another civ. Obviously the units and buildings played into this, but like in VI, some civs relied on them to be distinctive more than others (looking at you, Impis).

VI places a bigger importance on how a civ plays overall; instead of one big “key” ability, civs get a handful of nudges and pushes to play a certain way. Altogether I agree that it creates a cohesive civ with more depth than people give it credit for. However, the thing is none of the bonuses feel important. Many games place emphasis on player perception in strength; a big thing developers have found is that even a strong passive bonus feels less satisfying than a slightly weaker, but actively-triggered bonus. I think that’s something that VI falters with compares to V. Adjacency bonuses are nice, but you don’t really notice them as much as, say, a boatload or immediate Gold for finding a wonder or a shopping spree on land tiles.

I think the developers intended to scale back ability strength to make civs less one-note and easier to balance, but they might have gone too far in that direction. I think uniques that have an active, player-participatory component would be a good step in the right direction, as long a they aren’t tedious or overused (ie: Culture bombs).

 

[steveg700]

It's certainly possible to come up with a single ability that has both broad and subtle applications. Let me throw out some examples of what I think are well-designed civ's (or at least have some well-designed elements).

There's the two versions of Greece with their extra wild card slot. Simple but flexible. And whether you're playing Pericles or Gorgo, in either case you have a direction to go in. Neither leader ability is useful until you execute an active strategy for milking it.

Aztecs are a good example of a civ that has simple but potent abilities. When Montezume pops up and says "howdy, neighbor", I never forget what the Aztecs can do or what they are about. Their slave-taking UU ties into their district-building UA, and they snowball in power as they seize luxuries.

Egypt and China are both good takes on how to create builder civ's that don't simply have a ubiquitous, flat bonus to production that flat-out trump other civ's. There are problems in execution, like the UU's. And Qin's ability being limited to ancient and classical wonders while necessitating that he cranks out workers really makes it hard for him to build anything (especially without coastal or desert tiles) within the time frame they're available. China's improved inspirations and eurekas gives the civ a subtle way to unlock wonders faster.

With Russia, I like that it gets utility out of tundra tiles without actually getting bonus food. It's still an issue the player has to work out, rather than it being handed to him.

For my money, these stand out amongst the inelegant miasma of abilities we get from the like of Poland, Kongo, Nubia, Scythia, Sumeria, and all our belli-buffers. Sumeria is always odd that on the one hand Gilgamesh really wants to make friends, but on the other he wants to genocide hapless civ's with his war cart. Real lack of cohesion. Better step up quick with that delegation money before he gets a chance to not like you. These are amongst the civ's that feel like the devs just didn't put the time in to be clever and thematic.

 

[dagriggstar]

I prefer having one key ability rather than lots of smaller ones. One of my issues is that, if I were to describe an ability you would have no way of telling if it is a LUA or CUA. What is the point of both if there is no difference ?

Also lots of smaller bonuses don't tend to go together. Have you tried to make full use of France ?
+20% towards wonders in the Medieval, Renaissance and Industrial eras. You probably want Gothic Architecture to stack. That's at the civic Divine Right.
Garde Imperiale is at Military Science
Chateau is at Humanism. You will want to tech for flight to enhance it.
Free spy at castles.

Humanism is completely disconnected from Divine Right. Either you go for one or the other. There is only one wonder on the way to Humanism, the Colosseum (Base game at least)
Flight and Military Science are again completely disconnected from each other.
Castles has the government with 6 policies eureka. Theoretically you would go for Divine Right, but the eureakas require you to have a religion, which means investing production into religion rather than wonders. Also wonders on the tech route to castles are (only) Pyramids and Terra Cotta Army. Castles isn't really on the way to any wonder techs, although military science (UU) is on that path.

 

[Ornen]

To me, having religion abilities that leave the problem of getting a religion to the player is very much in line with rewarding the player for solving a problem. If it's impossible at higher difficulties, I can't equate that to a problem with the civ's design. The game shouldn't balance civ's against Deity.

Right, but they can balance the game around both. When it comes to religion, a big part of the problem is that there's a clear difference between faith and great prophets –– faith helps your religion, but doesn't really help get you a religion. That's where the prophets come in. But as long as they keep giving civs faith bonuses without giving them some kind of boost to GPPs (or getting religions otherwise, as is the case with Arabia) the civ's bonuses will fail to cohere. You can compensate for it at 'anything goes' difficulties, but not at the higher levels.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

This perception that Civ 6's unique bonuses are less creative than those of Civ 5 or Endless Legend is merely an illusion created by the sheer number of bonuses in the game. Every civilization in Civ 6 has a lot more bonuses than those in Civ 5, and Civ 6 has a lot more factions than Endless Legend does.

Every bonus can fundamentally be broken down into, "satisfy condition X, obtain reward Y". But as any game designer can tell you, there are a limited amount of Xs and Ys, so if your game is going to have a lot of bonuses, then you need to start looking at different combinations from the same shallow pool of Xs and Ys.

Since it was the Scotland first look video that prompted the creation of this thread, I'll use them as an example to illustrate my point.

Scottish Enlightenment
X: Gather enough amenities to make your cities happy or ecstatic. Y: Get extra science, production, great scientist points, and great engineer points.

Right away, the core premise of this thread is proven wrong, because we're starting off with an ability that has a completely unique X. This X is so versatile that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it used with other civilizations in the future. This ability's Y is just yields, although it is a specific combination of yields that we haven't seen much from other civilizations.

Golf Course
X: Build golf courses next to city centers, entertainment complexes, and water parks. Y: Get gold, amenities, culture, and even tourism after discovering flight.

This doesn't have a very innovative X, as almost all unique tile improvements have adjacency conditions of one sort or another, However, the Y here is really something special, as it is not only the first tile improvement in the entire game to grant amenities, it also synergizes with Scottish Enlightenment directly, giving the entire civ a more holistic feel.

Highlander
X: Fight with highlanders on hills and in woods. Y: Get more combat strength.

Unique units are always the lamest bonuses in every version of Civ, and this one is no exception. But that's more of an argument to get rid of unique units altogether, not a problem with Civ 6's bonuses specifically.

Bannockburn
X: Declare war on someone who has taken a city from a friend. Y: Get extra production and movement speed.

This is the one that's making people all bent out of shape, because it superficially resembles a lot of other leader abilities, like those of John Curtin, Cyrus, Chandragupta, and Tamar. Admittedly, the Y here is just Curtin's Y and Cyrus's Y glued together, but the X is more impactful than people give it credit for. Sure, all of those leader abilities reward you for getting into a war, but the circumstances you have to set up before starting those wars require a lot of different gameplay strategies. There's a world of difference between being able to declare any old war (Cyrus), needing to have several cities close to several enemy cities before declaring the war (Chandragupta), and provoking someone else into declaring war on you (Curtin). Robert requires you to have made a friend who has an enemy before you can get those bonuses from going to war. And be honest, if you were good at making friends, you wouldn't be spending your free time on a Civ forum. The closest comparison is Tamar declaring war on people who eat up her city-states, but even then, one can easily make the argument that it's easier to impress a city-state than it is to get the fickle A.I. to commit to a long term relationship.

 

[Hammurabbit]

I guess one limiting factor for extreme and very characteristic Civ-bonuses is that they have to make sure the AI can handle them. For example, today I don't think Harald uses his early deep sea ships + pillaging as much as he should. It's a clear (and fun!) strategy to spend the first couple of low war mongering eras to pillage random and defenseless land for quick gold, science, culture etc. But I haven't seen the AI take advantage of that.

 

[Nikae]

Now people cannot praise EU and shun civ6, it is high time to do it with another game!

The claim that civ5 did this better is flat out ridiculous, it's again crying for crying's sake. There were a few unique and hordes of bland civs.

The balance suffers a bit, rather than uniqueness.

 

[Trengilly]

As mentioned before - the great number of bonuses makes them seem less impactful.

But also Civ6 is easier than Civ5 - so you can play successfully without really bothering to focus on your civs unique abilities. ie You can play all the civs in a vanilla fashion and still win, which of course gets dull.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Couldn't agree more with the OP.

Civ VI's Civs, particularly the expansion Civs, have something of a flavour problem. What I really miss from Civ V are the little individual quirks that many Civs had that just added an extra bit of flavour even if the weren't always powerful in gameplay terms. Like how Spain always had to run around looking for natural wonders. Like how you always knew when Boudicca was on the map because of the super-early pantheon thanks to her faith from forests ability. How Carthage could cross mountains (and park her units on there until they died ). Egypt's insane wonder-spamming, England's super-cool and unique Longbowman that started with 3-tile range, the Iroquois' forest roads, the Inca's hill movement buff, the Mayan calendar, Indonesia's unique luxuries, and so on and so forth. To say nothing of Venice and Austria, with their city-state-snaffling powers.

Call these gimmicks - they were gimmicks - but nevertheless these are all Civs who made me think "wow, that sounds really different and interesting, I'd really like to play as them". And I still remember them, more than a year since I stopped playing Civ V. But I'm really not getting that from the R&F expansion Civs, which mostly seem to be a series of resource buffs and casus belli-activated boosts. The most interesting thing about most of the Civs so far has been the leader screens and the music.

I mean, I'm sure the new Civs will be fun to play. But I really wish they could do another pass on all of them and give them a tiny bit more character.

 

[orasis]

I just hope they fixed religion. It's tedious and usually pointless.

 

[mitsho]

This is just a really interesting thread in that it has big blocks of opinion. I'd even say, it would deserve a red diamond.

My take on the question revolves around what gives the player the most enjoyment. For me, that would be the chance to get to use the unique unit/ability whether or not this is the most effective way of playing or not. The often mentioned U-Boat I f.e. have not used as it simply wasn't needed when I was continually clicking on end turn. The more uniques there are, the more likely it is that you get to use some of them. The long list however may make you forget to use some as well. So I too opt for fewer memorable ones, especially as I play on fast speed.

Civ has become essentially two games: The power player plays to win and maximizes their uniques and counter-intuitive game mechanics (chop huy, religion & wonders more meh). The casual player on the other hand wants to experience a story, civ is essentially a RPG. This is where Uniques matter most, see Wonderbuilding Egypt, Mongolian Hordes and so on.

 

[Ondolindë]

What if it is intentional that the R&F don't have more interesting out of the box abilities? Maybe they want to keep that for post-expansion DLC civs with big names, so that these sell even better?

If they are doing that I’m going to be very upset because I would feel they’re playing with me and all of us. I don’t want to be a marketing strategy casualty. If that’s the case, it would give ammunition and rightfully so to those who profess that it is wise to wait until the game is finalized with all its expansions in order to get what you are paying for at a considerable discount. It would be a preposterous and deceitful move imho

Having said that, regardless of where Civ V is better vs. Civ VI is better debate is going to end up, it may not matter if the AI doesn’t take full use of Civ abilities as a whole. You can have the best Civ whichever way you want it but if it cannot interact intelligently with other friends or foes, its bonuses, its abilities and its units, its capacities will not shine nor be tested properly in a context where the AI doesn’t perform well, wether you’re a warmonger or go at it peacefully which is more complex and trying in my opinion. Civ V had a huge problem with that as well, problem that it became less of a problem as expansions came and went, but never fully fixed, although better in the end. Now mods did what Firaxis should have done, but it seems that’s the way of the industry, very sadly.

So, to be practical, we can expect that a similar trend will happen here and we just wait it out, maybe because we’re the minority and although they do read these forums (by which we know for sure they have gotten our message because this is not the first time this and the AI situation have been discussed), and glad that @FXS_Sarah is amongst us often and is very helpful, communicative, open and kind, but it seems that Firaxis as a whole will go for the commonest of denominators, meaning cater to the general Civ gamer who doesn’t care or care a lot less about these things, but are more numerous. Or the other practical option is to continue to post, be critical and star asking more about what they are actively doing with the AI and Civ design, (they may not answer, which in itself is an answer). For example, say ask on today’s live stream; call on the AI’s mistakes right then and there if there are any, continue to discuss the AI mistakes that are becoming apparent in live streams in general, and through this forum, continue to be a fair but a critical eye on the franchise, but put our money where are mouths are. I love the game and have for a while, but if there’s anything else that we all have in common here besides just playing the game is that we want it to become better and never lose its essence. Imho, it behooves Firaxis, and it is a smart thing to do, to pay careful attention to what we say, for although we might not be the general and more numerous cut of their market share, this group and probably another are the real fans who invest time and energy with our very busy schedules in the game not only by playing it, but also making it a living thing by our diverse discussions and passionate discourse and actions, again for the love of it. Because of that Firaxis ends up getting free instant analyses, feedback, ideas, reviews and support. Free. As an organizational behaviorist, that is Gold and very few companies do have that so freely. Just one example: the Cree. I can’t think of another better recent example of someone who loves the game and goes out of his way by calling people to support the rectification of Poundmaker’s integrity and life, and also reaching out to the Cree nation itself so as to protect the inclusion of that Civ in the game just like @Eagle Pursuit did a few weeks ago. It might have been small or big, it might never have been in danger of being excluded and a problem for Firaxis or its parent company, who knows, but you don’t get that out of the average Joe or Joanne from the general, common denominator cut of the market share, even if it’s bigger and more lucrative. You don’t, period. For that alone and the other things done by people in this forum, I believe we deserve a more frank and open discussion from Firaxis about the AI and about Civ design, or at the very least clear indication that they are doing something about it and not only mention it casually. This forum gives feedback every day, incessantly, for the love of the game. I want to see that returned in kind.

Edit: redundant word

 

[valerislysander]

I really like the Civs so far in Civ6. I try and play as a different one each time and usually it changes how I play the game in some way so I would say they are unique. I think they are more unique than the ones in 5. Also when a new Civ is released and is OP people complain they are to easy to play with and to powerful etc. So Firaxis tone it down and try not to have OP Civs and people complain they are not unique. Seems they cannot win...
What I would l like to see is more unique diplomacy with different Civs. It's always the same thing and I get quite bored of the diplomacy in the base game. I think in Civ5 alliances etc were far more interesting and useful. I'm hoping R&F will solve this problem

 

[bdp612]

Every bonus can fundamentally be broken down into, "satisfy condition X, obtain reward Y". But as any game designer can tell you, there are a limited amount of Xs and Ys, so if your game is going to have a lot of bonuses, then you need to start looking at different combinations from the same shallow pool of Xs and Ys.

Since it was the Scotland first look video that prompted the creation of this thread, I'll use them as an example to illustrate my point.

Scottish Enlightenment
X: Gather enough amenities to make your cities happy or ecstatic. Y: Get extra science, production, great scientist points, and great engineer points.

Right away, the core premise of this thread is proven wrong, because we're starting off with an ability that has a completely unique X. This X is so versatile that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it used with other civilizations in the future. This ability's Y is just yields, although it is a specific combination of yields that we haven't seen much from other civilizations.

The reaction to Scotland did precipitate this thread, but only because posters were continuing to scratch at how I've felt since Civ VI was released, which is a feeling and origination that I mentioned in my first post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Scottish Enlightenment is a good ability, and it's unique. However, another thing that I mention in my first post is that there are exceptions, and no, they don't prove my core premise wrong.

You suggest that Firaxis has exhausted all of their Xs and Ys, and so these combinations are necessary. It's true that there are a limited number of currencies, but some of the combinations they are choosing are part of what is frustrating people.

In addition an X and a Y can have varying weights/degrees. Civ VI often grants Ys in slight ways, and so maybe when people complain about a belli-boost, it's because the other abilities didn't go far enough to make the Civ feel special, to feel different from other Civs. To suggest that certain people are just dizzied by the sheer number of abilities is wrong and is missing the overriding point. Too many of the Civs are just boring.

You also minimize ability types to "X condition Y reward", when some of the best Civ abilities are unconditional, and the reward is that you can break through the typical actions in the game. They allow you to DO things that are unique. There's a big "fun factor" difference between getting to settle islands effectively (Indonesia), in a way that no other Civ can, versus the suggestion that you should make your cities happier to get something (Scotland). Too many abilities just suggest that you perform the same actions in slightly different ways to get things.

I'm not saying every Civ needs this type of thing, but in my opinion the game needs to break open from its own mold. Something like a movable Mongolian encampment, as some posters were hoping for, seems forever out of the question at this rate. Most of the new Civs now just feel like SQL injection mods, like the developers aren't willing to touch their own base code.

This is all obviously very subjective. To each their own. One poster suggested that while V was too gimmicky, VI is too subtle. Thinking in these terms, I wish every Civ had a fun gimmick as well as the additional subtle X/Y abilities.

 

[ChocolateShake]

I think the problem may be leader abilities. I'd rather have 2 civ bonuses, or even 1 unique one, rather than have leader abilities. We only have 2 alternative leaders at the moment, and even though I think alternative leaders change up their civ and provide new gameplay, it's not enough if we have to sacrifice more powerful civs in exchange. Having 2 bonuses that are well themed is a lot better to me than having a civ and a leader who don't really have matching themes. Versatility is great, but only up to a point. I think Rise of Nations handled civ diversity really well, here's Egypt's bonuses in that game:

• Start with a free Granary. Granary production upgrades are researched instantly and for free, once they become available.
• Food Commerce Limit +10%.
• May build 7 Farms per City (instead of 5). Farms also generate +2 Wealth.
• Wonders cost 25% less, can be built one age early, and may build a maximum of two per City (instead of one). The 25% includes ramping cost.

The first three bonuses all tie into each other, and make Egypt probably the strongest food resource civ (been a while since I played). The final bonus is really powerful, meaning Egypt can secure most wonders as long as they don't fall behind too far. By comparison, Civ 6's Egypt has a wonder-building bonus that is worse than the Brussels suzerain bonus (when it comes to wonders).

There is a danger when you make civs too strong in one area; players might feel forced to pick a civ when they want to achieve a certain goal. But I think most players would take it as a challenge to beat Egypt for example to a wonder or some other scenario. Civ 2 really left it up to the player to choose what kind of civ they wanted; the only difference was the name. That was interesting in its own right.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

There's a big "fun factor" difference between getting to settle islands effectively (Indonesia), in a way that no other Civ can, versus the suggestion that you should make your cities happier to get something (Scotland).

This is all obviously very subjective. To each their own.

The fact that fun is subjective is at the root of why this thread's argument is flawed. People are trying to portray a personal problem as a universal one.

So you think settling islands is "fun" and hoarding amenities is "boring". That's fine, you can feel however you want about any given playstyle. But that does not demonstrate a lack of creativity on the part of the game designers. In a game with 40+ factions that each encourage the player to pursue different goals, it's inevitable that not all of them are going to appeal to you personally.

You contrast Indonesia against Scotland as an example of a civilization that you believe is creatively designed. But are they really that different? Let's break down Indonesia's abilities and see how unique they really are.

Great Nusantara
X: Build districts next to oceans and lakes. Y: Get yields.

On the surface level, this ability isn't all that unique at all. It's the same ability as Brazil, Australia, and the Netherlands. "Build districts on a certain type of terrain, get more yields". Of course, in practice, the demands of those specific terrain types cause each of those civs to play very differently, but the same is true for the various casus belli related abilities. I don't understand how anyone can claim that abilities from the first category are fun and unique while abilities from the second category are boring and derivative, as they're both designed using the exact same philosophy.

Jong
X: Link civilian units to your jongs. Y: Safely transport your civilian units between cities without having to worry about boatbarians.

This is a well designed unique unit, as it helps you protect your civilians during the part of the game where boatbarians are the most prolific. But is it particularly unique or creative? Not really. The game already had a unique unit who powered up from being linked to a civilian, Spain's conquistador.

Kampung
X: Build kampungs next to fishing boats. Y: Get housing, production, food, and tourism.

This unique tile improvement is rather deceptive, as it's true value lies not in the yields it provides, but rather in the fact that's it's the only unique tile improvement that can be built on water tiles that would otherwise be unimprovable. That's definitely cool, but it's not really any more creative than being the first tile improvement to grant an amenity.

Exalted Goddess of the Three Worlds
X: Hoard loads of faith. Y: Get a strong navy.
X: Push religion. Y: Spread to cities across the sea that are harder for other players to reach.
X: Settle next to oceans and lakes. Y: Get a small amount of faith.

An interesting multi-part ability. But like most everything else, just recombinations of bonuses that were already in the game elsewhere. The first ability is the same one you get from the theocracy government, just applied to naval units instead of terrestrial ones. The second is a nerfed version of Norway's ability that applies only to religious units. The last one is exactly the same as Indonesia's civ ability, just applied to a district that doesn't normally produce yields on its own. This is a great example of my point about how rearranging parts of other abilities can create new ones that don't look very unique on paper, but can create playstyles that are very unique when put into practice.

 

[steveg700]

By comparison, Civ 6's Egypt has a wonder-building bonus that is worse than the Brussels suzerain bonus (when it comes to wonders).

That touches on a point I had intended to make in a previous post.

Some lot of city-states have suzerain bonuses that would have been really great as tentpole civ abilities, to an extent that having the suzerain bonus is often a bigger influence on victory progress than the abilities of the civ I'm playing.

 

[Haig]

Now people cannot praise EU and shun civ6, it is high time to do it with another game!

The claim that civ5 did this better is flat out ridiculous, it's again crying for crying's sake. There were a few unique and hordes of bland civs.

The balance suffers a bit, rather than uniqueness.

A-men!