Civ VII how people get it all wrong...

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree. I think the key is to offer the player interesting choices rather than directly removing their control of some aspect of their empire.

If there is a single Golden Rule of Good Game Design it is to maximize the number of Really Relevant Decisions the gamer has to make and reduce the number of Mind-Numbingly Boring It Don't Matter Mouse Clicks required.

Specifically, every Civic, Social Policy, and many Techs adopted should have both Good and Bad effects, and the degree of each should be, to some extent, possible for the Gamer to influence. Sometimes, to be sure, only with great effort.

More specifically, I think Civ VII has to include in its Relevant Decisions some that apply to Internal Problems, not just External to the Civ you are playing. Your population, little digital non-entities though they may be individually, in the mass should have Effects that you, Immortal Grand Fartlek though you may be, have to react to or anticipate. The current Near-Total Control that the gamer has over Religion, Social Policy, Civic choices with any combination allowable and no penalties anywhere except missing out on a specific Bonus is really Lame. The game is already Fantasy in many aspects, but this is like doing Mordor with Sauron as a puppy dog so that your only conflict is keeping him from chewing on your shoes when he should be trying to shove them down your throat at swordpoint.

 

[mitsho]

That's more appropriate to a grand strategy game than a 4X game. I wouldn't mind seeing more forces beyond the player's control, like religion and possibly even something like Endless Space 2's political parties, but primary control should always be in the hands of the player in a 4X game.

I've always viewed Civ primarily as an RPG. Not making myself any friends here I know. The competitive 4X aspect is certainly there, but it runs into a roadblock in civ as they usually end in end-game fights to the end between a low number of factions which is just not viable with Civ(6)'s slow warfare where everyone survives to the end somehow. If it's not my solution, there needs to be another radical innovation to the endgame. Or let me rephrase my original sentence with help of Boris:

If there is a single Golden Rule of Good Game Design it is to maximize the number of Really Relevant Decisions the gamer has to make and reduce the number of Mind-Numbingly Boring It Don't Matter Mouse Clicks required.

I perhaps phrased my "third part" too much with regards to the in-game lore. My third phase is really about the number of clicks. The player can still maintain god-like control, as long as adding a new system like flight does away with one where you just mindlessly click (managing 15 trade routes). I stand by that.

 

[PiR]

Your population, little digital non-entities though they may be individually, in the mass should have Effects that you, Immortal Grand Fartlek though you may be, have to react to or anticipate.

Some mechanics like immigration could be quite innovative and interesting.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've always viewed Civ primarily as an RPG. Not making myself any friends here I know. The competitive 4X aspect is certainly there, but it runs into a roadblock in civ as they usually end in end-game fights to the end between a low number of factions which is just not viable with Civ(6)'s slow warfare where everyone survives to the end somehow. If it's not my solution, there needs to be another radical innovation to the endgame. Or let me rephrase my original sentence with help of Boris:

Shucks, given the Leader animations and emphasis, personalized Great People and Governors, individual Missionaries, Archeologists, Traders, Builders, etc I've always thought that Civ was designed as an RPG; they give you so many in-game 'characters' to identify with!

I perhaps phrased my "third part" too much with regards to the in-game lore. My third phase is really about the number of clicks. The player can still maintain god-like control, as long as adding a new system like flight does away with one where you just mindlessly click (managing 15 trade routes). I stand by that.

No question, a lot of the individual 'actions' in the game now managed to the nitpicking limit by the gamer should be 'automated' in the sense that the digital Population does them by itself - sometimes regardless of the wishes of the gamer. Good examples of 'automatable' activities would be Migration of population both between cities and Civs, setting and maintaining Trade Routes, starting, spreading, and even going to war because of Religion - no matter how Omnipotent some historic God King appears, there were always things going on within his State and between his State and others over which he had very little control, an those are excellent places that the game can reduce the amount of Endless Mouse Clicks by the gamer and increase both the automation and the potential management problems the gamer/government has to deal with. If, for instance, your little digital people are clamoring for war against the Ghastly Heretical neighboring Empire because of their religion, and that Empire also happens to be twice your size, what are you going to do? (And the game design has to give the gamer options in those situations both to 'head off' the problem before it develops and to survive it once it hits

 

[Zaarin]

I've always viewed Civ primarily as an RPG.

I honestly would have zero problems bringing more RPG elements into Civ. I'm primarily a narrative game player--RPGs, adventure games, "walking simulators"--and even strategy games I play for a mix of "I like building pretty things" and emergent stories.

 

[PiR]

If, for instance, your little digital people are clamoring for war against the Ghastly Heretical neighboring Empire because of their religion, and that Empire also happens to be twice your size, what are you going to do?

Exactly the kind of mechanic I would love to see in the game.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Some mechanics like immigration could be quite innovative and interesting.

I would like to have population as the more relevant key element on game, the one that clearly link all the other statistics and mechanics. Beside reduce production, stop growing and revolt, an unhappy population should have the option to migrate to others cities.

By the way the American civ certainly would gain from population migration mechanics being the epitome of a country of immigrants. Americans would have the benefit that each immigrant could have a chance to become either a free settler or a great people. This would be more significative on the later eras when population demand more luxuries and progressive civics, at the same time represent USA as a country not just about military, trade, industry, culture, science, etc. But as a country that attracts people of all kinds including innovative ones on every sector. So we can play an American civ with an explosive growth and innovation on all the areas as reward of take care about the well being of your population (the key to attract migrants).

 

[Gedemon]

Some mechanics like immigration could be quite innovative and interesting.

I hope they will un-streamline a bit Population in the next iteration, IMO that's a pre-requisite to make it the base "yield" of the game and allow an easier implementation of a lot of mechanisms, including this one.

ATM population is only "food", and 1 pop in a size 6 city is not the same as 1 pop in a size 12 city, making a balanced "immigration" mechanism possible only by using food transfer.

 

[jsciv69]

Historic accuracy. Most of these games have a starting age at 4,000 BCE. Cities came to be much earlier than that. In fact the major continents on the planet were reached and inhabited by around 12,000 years ago. So i think a starting age at about 10,000BCE would be more accurate.

Black Market. This element as been ignored by this series. Illicit Trade can be an influential and important part of society. It can start with the rise of Pirates. Then it can evolve into other ventures. Opium was a major business. Bootlegging Narcotics, gambling, Liquor, etc. is a real part of history. let's make it a part of Civilization.

Casinos. These should be buildings triggered by achieving certain Entertainment Techs.

World Map. This was a tool from Civ-III. Once optained, it revealed the whole World. Let's bring that back.

 

[civac]

I've always viewed Civ primarily as an RPG. Not making myself any friends here I know. The competitive 4X aspect is certainly there, but it runs into a roadblock in civ as they usually end in end-game fights to the end between a low number of factions which is just not viable with Civ(6)'s slow warfare where everyone survives to the end somehow.

That's funny. Competitive MP play is the area where Civ6 works best. It avoids the problems with the AI and tactical combat between humans is pretty fun. Strong defenders advantages are fine in MP, otherwise the game becomes unbalanced too easily.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I agree. I think the key is to offer the player interesting choices rather than directly removing their control of some aspect of their empire.

The key is understand a good combat for the hex format that could put up a decent experience. Get some roads back, make more unpassable tiles, included desert, sea, mountains, but not for all units;
and units that can only use roads, like chariots and catapults, cannons... the biggest concern is the Ai walking in circles as of Civ V and hex introduction... too many moves and memory resources just to have to move unit A to point B because of all limitations going on with the 1UPT, AND the Hexes increased movement choices. Hence to avoid PC meltdowns we need mods like unit limit or the Ai will just spam units in circles without doing basically nothing and effectively wasting turns on turns, making gameplay boring, whilst the old ways (CIV 2,3,4) were effective as **#$* because one army stack would just go straight to the target. 3 units stack and double movement made things just worst.

Humankind has developed a stacking unit combat game that seems to work, but it looks like an RPG and to me it looks very confusing, in that you do not understand at a glance what is going on...
Old World has changed tactic also in combat, giving movement in absolute numbers, which it looks like at least its trying to limit what the Ai can spend time on thinking.
Is Old world back with stacking units? I don't know, but it would be interesting to see.
So the choice is to keep thinking the Hex will save the day with 1UPT. Change rules dramatically like HK or OW. And would be interesting to see some ideas about how???
Or... go back to the 4x fundamentals... re-establish the balance means this. go back to the fundamentals.

This is what I meant also. Civics, tech tree, gold, taxes, etc etc, are important, but considering how bad the Ai is, there must be a square down in my opinion....
random dice rolls that determines stuff.
If the Ai KNOWS that will lose, and its analysing win-lose percentages, it will push and push tech and never make a move... if you take the Ai away ALL probability analisys for example?? What would happen?? Simplify Ai, then change the map...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Historic accuracy. Most of these games have a starting age at 4,000 BCE. Cities came to be much earlier than that. In fact the major continents on the planet were reached and inhabited by around 12,000 years ago. So i think a starting age at about 10,000BCE would be more accurate.

Black Market. This element as been ignored by this series. Illicit Trade can be an influential and important part of society. It can start with the rise of Pirates. Then it can evolve into other ventures. Opium was a major business. Bootlegging Narcotics, gambling, Liquor, etc. is a real part of history. let's make it a part of Civilization.

Casinos. These should be buildings triggered by achieving certain Entertainment Techs.

World Map. This was a tool from Civ-III. Once optained, it revealed the whole World. Let's bring that back.

That would be the New world if China would not have invented paper money some 2000 years ago... just one tech missing... and everything changes...

 

[PiR]

I think an interesting model for Civ VII could be using the "frequent releases" model not for new features, but for bug fixes. Leveraging better the inputs of the community, fixing them faster, that would encourage people to contribute in quality bug reports as we can see here.

 

[Naokaukodem]

To the OP : what are the two missing "X" in 6X ? I didn't watch the video, or at least that's too boring for me.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The 4X were not discussed in the video
However, my interpretation may differ from others 'cause of the lack of X...

COMBAT
EXPLORATION
EXPANSION
INVENTION (tech, buildings,etc)

A 6X is the latter 4X plus, just my personal interpretation:

NEVERENDING TALKING
BALANCE - -

Diplomacy, warmongering stuff inherited from EU IV system and such, that makes CIV AI stupid...
talking talking talking... in my video I was interrupted by every civ at each end turn... thousands clicks of nothing....

Balance... everything is too similar, from civ to civ, every civ goes for techs... no real advantage from unique units... cities all the same... only Vietnam made a somewhat different look... in civ V for example Iroquis could use forests as road, and that was unique. In civ Vi romans may build forts, but does Ai ever use this feature? Romans built roads. All the roads are the same... and so on... do we even have to talk about tanks?? ninjas?? war elephants?? Partisans... or the differences between Communism, Diplomacy or Fascism?? Where are those?? No Revolts, people always happy...

More appropriate 2x could be:

EXHAUSTING
EXCRUCIATING...

 

[Naokaukodem]

Oh I understand your frustration ! Although I don't identify its subject quite well. But I know, I know... I'm the same. It comes usually when I can't beat the game in Deity. (although I'm more an Emperor Civ6 player) My main issue is science : even in multiplayer I can't beat the other ones in science past the beginning. (50 turns ? More ?) And in Deity... I never completed a single game in that mode except the vanilla without patch. (and the trade gold bugs) Each game a different problem. Either surrounded turn 10 by 5-6 warriors, either barbarians uprisings everywhere (I desactivate them now), but more often backwarded in science by 15-20 techs at turn 150. (when you should catch up if i'm right) The problem I pointed out elsewhere is that it seems I can't do enough in a single turn to improve my situation. (the opposite of you who blame micromanagement) I press 'next turn' too often. As to leaders interrupting you, I never read the rubbish they say (Escape) except trades but very quickly (often a civ i'm beating demanding a luxury or a strategic for 5 flat gold, good try troll !) AI behavior is hopeless, but there are other ways to have fun with Civ6 (I believe). Still trying.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Made a vid, of a game where basically Ai build only buildings, and no units.
I played Prince, with only Domination and cultural, no barbarians, no CS.
The fact is that with city defence, Ai doesn't build units to defend cities, because it just need walls!
Ai i s hopeless but devs are not, so I just hope they will go back on their steps and take away city health, and allow for a more
complex city defence tactics...

 

[Krajzen]

Made a vid, of a game where basically Ai build only buildings, and no units.
I played Prince, with only Domination and cultural, no barbarians, no CS.
The fact is that with city defence, Ai doesn't build units to defend cities, because it just need walls!
Ai i s hopeless but devs are not, so I just hope they will go back on their steps and take away city health, and allow for a more
complex city defence tactics...

I really cherish moments when people notice how absurdly defensive, pacifist and static the gameplay of civ6 is (between AI civilizations, human can take over the world with ease). I have always noticed how in Earth timelapses of civ6 usually very few civs are eliminated from the game, very few build any sort of expansionist empire, and basically the end map is symmetrically divided by starting civs who didn't manage to conquer much of each other. Extremely boring.

Which is simultaneously utterly historically unrealistic, removing a lot of challenge from the human player, as well as removing a lot of fun from passive observation of the global affairs.

And why shouldn't the game look like this if all its mechanics discourage large AI empires and AI military conquest?
- Awful war AI to begin with (because 1UPT model of civ is the hardest possible system ever to design AI for)
- An inherent logistical horror of using 1UPT army in any rougher terrain (made worse by civ6 movement changes)
- Cities themselves being defensive powerhouses (made worse by civ6 walls)
- Secondary cities firing at the attacker as well (encampments fighting is IMO one of the most obnoxious additions of this game)
- Small distances between cities which mean an attacker is constantly shot at from many directions by all those cities and encampments
- A dominance of ranged units ober melee which favors defense (another trait of this kind of 1UPT really hard to remove)
- Reinforcements of attacker needing a ton of time to arrive because of rough terrain move rules, an inability to casually build roads like in civ5 and much slower roads than civ5
- The terrible loyalty system which adds nothing to the actual internal stability of empires, but cripples an ability to expand. Which is also utterly ahistorical, good luck building Carthaginian, Norman, Venetian, Chola or colonial empires with those loyalty rules.

Any offensive and expansion in civ6 is hell for AI.