Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Thoughts on Civ6

[Staler87]

The problem was not the base idea. It was more the availability of resources. On a large map you could easily get every single resource sid-sushi co. had to offer and see an obscene increase in the local stats of the city and in your national income every time you spread it. I've had games where the gold cost to spreading it was made back up in a couple turns from the gold gain even on 100% budget expenditures. Religions were a much more reasonable give bonuses to every city feature.

 

[Magil]

Sid's Sushi is mentioned frequently because it's generally more profitable than Cereal Mills (available earlier, shares a resource, has more total resources to utilize), and because the gold-to-food mechanic is not mimicked by any other aspect of the game. You can do gold to production via rush-buy, gold to culture via the culture slider, gold to research via deficit research. Gold to food is only available via corporation. Additionally, food can be "converted" into almost any other yield via specialists.

I disagree with the problem not being the base idea, though. I still maintain that the concept of allowing cities access to significant yields that they don't produce themselves is a dangerous idea that threatens a lot of core Civ ideas. In particular, one tenet of Civilization VI is to make the land the star, to make the terrain matter, to force cities and Civs to build in accordance with their surroundings. Corporations completely disregard local terrain as they were implemented in IV. They allow you to ignore the land because your yields come from external sources. Just like the extremely overpowered Maritime city-states of vanilla Civ V.

Maybe it can be done well. But I remain exceedingly skeptical.

 

[LDiCesare]

I disagree with the problem not being the base idea, though. I still maintain that the concept of allowing cities access to significant yields that they don't produce themselves is a dangerous idea that threatens a lot of core Civ ideas. In particular, one tenet of Civilization VI is to make the land the star, to make the terrain matter, to force cities and Civs to build in accordance with their surroundings. Corporations completely disregard local terrain as they were implemented in IV. They allow you to ignore the land because your yields come from external sources. Just like the extremely overpowered Maritime city-states of vanilla Civ V.

I agree with that. Corporations I could bear with because the costs were quite high, they appeared quite late in game so the net effect was quite minor. To me, it just helped speed up the end-game so Icould get to the victory screen a few turns faster.
However, maritile city-states are probably the thing I loathe most in CivV (along with the dumb ai). They are just totally immersion-breaking and gamey. By focusing on a single city, you increase your population worldwide??? It required even less effort than Sid's Sushi and was available from the beginning, turning the game into a farce: Whoever had access to these has such a huge bonus.

 

[Staler87]

Sid's Sushi is mentioned frequently because it's generally more profitable than Cereal Mills (available earlier, shares a resource, has more total resources to utilize), and because the gold-to-food mechanic is not mimicked by any other aspect of the game. You can do gold to production via rush-buy, gold to culture via the culture slider, gold to research via deficit research. Gold to food is only available via corporation. Additionally, food can be "converted" into almost any other yield via specialists.

I disagree with the problem not being the base idea, though. I still maintain that the concept of allowing cities access to significant yields that they don't produce themselves is a dangerous idea that threatens a lot of core Civ ideas. In particular, one tenet of Civilization VI is to make the land the star, to make the terrain matter, to force cities and Civs to build in accordance with their surroundings. Corporations completely disregard local terrain as they were implemented in IV. They allow you to ignore the land because your yields come from external sources. Just like the extremely overpowered Maritime city-states of vanilla Civ V.

Maybe it can be done well. But I remain exceedingly skeptical.

The land would be the star if the bonuses were tied much more closely to the resources produced locally. This would solve many balance issues and make more sense from a realism point of view. This was the base idea in civ IV (make the bonuses come from the land and trade to a lesser extent) but ended up being a bit of a farce.

 

[frenzyfol]

My biggest concern is this:
https://youtu.be/oRSbI8NANno
Watch as both the lead and senior designer wrestle with a mechanic that causes them to be confused as to why they cannot build a unit in a city. This, during a contrived, probably rehearsed, demo with just 2 cities. Imagine the frustration that will occur when playing with an empire.

I accept that 1UPT is hear to stay, but there are easy ways to solve the traffic jams created by the 1 UPT problem. Other than that, civ 6 is looking beautiful and I cant wait to play it.

 

[Magil]

My biggest concern is this:
https://youtu.be/oRSbI8NANno
Watch as both the lead and senior designer wrestle with a mechanic that causes them to be confused as to why they cannot build a unit in a city. This, during a contrived, probably rehearsed, demo with just 2 cities. Imagine the frustration that will occur when playing with an empire.

I accept that 1UPT is hear to stay, but there are easy ways to solve the traffic jams created by the 1 UPT problem. Other than that, civ 6 is looking beautiful and I cant wait to play it.

Well, if they'd just allow civilian unit stacking... I honestly have no idea why they don't. Hopefully it'll be easy to mod that in, as I found mods that allowed it in V and the game is much better for it.

 

[LDiCesare]

My biggest concern is this:
https://youtu.be/oRSbI8NANno
Watch as both the lead and senior designer wrestle with a mechanic that causes them to be confused as to why they cannot build a unit in a city. This, during a contrived, probably rehearsed, demo with just 2 cities. Imagine the frustration that will occur when playing with an empire.

I accept that 1UPT is hear to stay, but there are easy ways to solve the traffic jams created by the 1 UPT problem. Other than that, civ 6 is looking beautiful and I cant wait to play it.

Any idea of what time to look forin the vieo? They're a bit sluggish in their play and it's too long to watch honestly.

 

[BojanR 81]

I'm a Civ 4 BTS lover and Civ 5 BNW critic. I pray that Civ 6 will not be Civ 5.2
I hated some features from Civ 5 that spoiled my joy of playing. That was:

- Slow cultural borders expanding
- Tiles buying
- Global happiness
- Most AI Empires consisting of just 2 or 3 cities in entire game
- Carpets of doom
- Pointless trading system
- Domination victory conditions (taking all capitals )
- Non aggressive AI (you can walk trough 6000 years without even one war???). In best cases I have one war and after that no one is attacking me...

On the other hand I liked:

- New hexagon system
- New Civs
- New UU
- New religion system
- New wonders
- New tech-tree and its connection with wonder building

I hope that all good things from Civ 5 will be in Civ 6 and at least some of bad things will be corrected, replaced, changed...

 

[frenzyfol]

Any idea of what time to look forin the vieo? They're a bit sluggish in their play and it's too long to watch honestly.

I could of sworn I copied the right time.. Anyway
https://youtu.be/oRSbI8NANno?t=2517
around the 41 minute mark if that doesnt work.

 

[Morningcalm]

The diplomacy is my main worry. As at least one other poster pointed out, a lot of the agendas punish you for doing well. Qin doesn't admire someone who makes a lot of wonders (rewarding accomplishments) but rather the LACK of wonders. Similarly, Pedro II doesn't seem to like players who, like him, enjoy conversing with intellectuals (which is thoroughly ironic). Rather, he would prefer to hoard all the intellectuals to himself (not at all like the Pedro of real life). And again, he punishes those who accomplish the difficult task of getting a fair few Great People.

In many other respects, it's a nuisance to have the AI give you constant pop-ups to remind you that they like you or not--a lot of that could be made less frequent and encourage players to look at a diplomacy chart like the competent and easy-to-read one in Civ IV.

I'm also worried agendas will override/conflict with other AI behavior (i.e. you settling near them--will that concern Victoria or delight her, as she likes people with cities on her continent?).

A lot of the diplomacy seen in gameplay vids thus far is an almost exact mirror of Civ 5 diplomacy except for the agenda system. I would rather diplomacy was more nuanced and stable ala Civ IV, where bonuses or detriments to diplomatic favor from one leader would take a while to accumulate.

Also, I notice leaders don't ask for bribes in Civ VI. This is very similar to Civ V (where recorded bribe lines were found, and never appear in-game). Just as AI ask for help, they should also *demand* help from players to avoid war if they are stronger.

Another concern is that the AI clearly doesn't know how to war. I second BAStartGaming's suggestion that the AI units get more experience to start to compensate for their poorer positioning and the AI's inability to maintain a concerted attack on a city (they typically send one wave, wait til they're at the border, then declare war, only to fiddle around uselessly when you break that wave to pieces).

 

[Bechhold]

Still too early. Lack of later era units as others have pointed out such as basic Rifleman. Diplomacy still seems one way, slow border growth could be a pain, and haven't seen great works of art and writing. Hope it returns. Global Happiness, no Health like in Civ 4.

Micromanagement being introduced seems wonderful instead of just hitting next turn etc. after late game, worker system gives strategy more of a voice, trade is back(though hopefully it's more expanded than what we've seen) in the basic game, along with religion. Maybe we'll see unique religious buildings as well?

 

[Staler87]

The diplomacy is my main worry. As at least one other poster pointed out, a lot of the agendas punish you for doing well. Qin doesn't admire someone who makes a lot of wonders (rewarding accomplishments) but rather the LACK of wonders. Similarly, Pedro II doesn't seem to like players who, like him, enjoy conversing with intellectuals (which is thoroughly ironic). Rather, he would prefer to hoard all the intellectuals to himself (not at all like the Pedro of real life). And again, he punishes those who accomplish the difficult task of getting a fair few Great People.

In many other respects, it's a nuisance to have the AI give you constant pop-ups to remind you that they like you or not--a lot of that could be made less frequent and encourage players to look at a diplomacy chart like the competent and easy-to-read one in Civ IV.

I'm also worried agendas will override/conflict with other AI behavior (i.e. you settling near them--will that concern Victoria or delight her, as she likes people with cities on her continent?).

A lot of the diplomacy seen in gameplay vids thus far is an almost exact mirror of Civ 5 diplomacy except for the agenda system. I would rather diplomacy was more nuanced and stable ala Civ IV, where bonuses or detriments to diplomatic favor from one leader would take a while to accumulate.

Also, I notice leaders don't ask for bribes in Civ VI. This is very similar to Civ V (where recorded bribe lines were found, and never appear in-game). Just as AI ask for help, they should also *demand* help from players to avoid war if they are stronger.

Another concern is that the AI clearly doesn't know how to war. I second BAStartGaming's suggestion that the AI units get more experience to start to compensate for their poorer positioning and the AI's inability to maintain a concerted attack on a city (they typically send one wave, wait til they're at the border, then declare war, only to fiddle around uselessly when you break that wave to pieces).

Games that reward accomplishment encourage snowballing which is not a great mechanic. Plus it is much more realistic to have great civilizations hated then weak ones. Just look at how much hate America gets. Whenever a country reaches super-power status they make a lot of enemies. People don't like other people being better than them and it is no different in politics. To me it works with gameplay and it works with realism.

 

[gimley_gunner]

Will wait and see how Civ 6 shapes up and when all the DLC is released. I don't think it's going to be a bad game. In the mean time Endless Legend has got my eye.

 

[Ricci]

The problem was not the base idea. It was more the availability of resources. On a large map you could easily get every single resource sid-sushi co. had to offer and see an obscene increase in the local stats of the city and in your national income every time you spread it.

Neither of both. Getting every resource doesn´t benefit more than getting that much instances of a single one the corp. uses, as every additional resource gives the same yield. On the contrary, having every resource blocks the corp owner from the "Hostile Takeover" quest, which enhances the never "obscene" money income from it, if completed, at the expense of a war.

I've had games where the gold cost to spreading it was made back up in a couple turns from the gold gain even on 100% budget expenditures. Religions were a much more reasonable give bonuses to every city feature.

I play Marathon, so can´t know exactly of other speeds (but it cames up to be exactly proportional in all cases but some aspects concerning units cost&movement), but the expense of spreading -which I rather have it changed a little bit as I mentioned earlier- is never ever made back in a couple of turns. Something is wrong with that math; even in the optimal money back case where you only have one resource costing mantainance, +%200 gold in the Headquarters, you end up with more than 7 turns to cash in the investment. Regarding the expansion is in your own territory, you have already the Wall street in HQ, you are runing Free market. And you have to add the cost of the Corp executive.

Religions spread many times by themselves, are non erradicable -contrary to corps- and they also need a GP to cash in that churches income, as corps.

Claims over Corps being "obscene" or even umbalanced, just don´t sum up in the thorough analysis. The trade-offs the player has to endure to make them optimal (as it is the situation taken as the norm, even it is not) are immense. To name a few:

- Are constrained to Free market (even if you hace awful trade routes and will be better off with whatever other economic policy)
- You need a specific GP in the right moment (keeping for aeons the needed great person is quite suboptimal, and it doesn´t even secure the corp for you as it is a WW)
- Need the wall street as early as posible (expensive building needing a lot of banks which you many times can´t or just won´t rush if it weren´t for this strategy. Hence, big trade-off)
-Have to invest some money (should be more, according to the city size, etc) to expand it, and some not minor amount of production. More money to make it foreign.
- If you take it foreign you get nice gold (after 20 turns aprox regaining the investment) provided the foreign country doesn´t go into Mercantilism or State property (very common indeed). Plus you are giving the use of the corp to other civs. All this makes it a risky move.

I am surely missing something in the list. Anyways, I can understand people who are very used to play always the same style, the same empire model and structure, and possibly very loosely with the difficulty level, tend to see corps as being umbalaced. They can do with some minor tweek, I believe, as in the cost of a new expansion.
I have one mp game in which I actually had to get rid of all the imports and even get free of some corp. resources I had because I got involved in a difficult war and the costs were sinking me, not paying off at all (Sid Sushi´s mind you), and I needed the budget for upgrades, espionage, etc.

 

[Ricci]

I disagree with the problem not being the base idea, though. I still maintain that the concept of allowing cities access to significant yields that they don't produce themselves is a dangerous idea that threatens a lot of core Civ ideas.
...

This is the whole new concept and mechanic of corps in IV, having local yields (which dominated the game so far till they come along) be re-arranged, making posible new economic structures and world balance. It is a great base idea, actually. And acceptably implemented.

 

[Magil]

Anyways, I can understand people who are very used to play always the same style, the same empire model and structure, and possibly very loosely with the difficulty level, tend to see corps as being umbalaced. They can do with some minor tweek, I believe, in the cost of a new expansion.
I have one mp gamein which I actually had to get rid of all the imports and even get free of some corp. resources I had because I got involved in a difficult war and the costs were sinking me, not paying off at all (Sid Sushi´s mind you), and I needed the budget for upgrades, espionage, etc.

Having a bunch of free food helps pretty much any Civ IV strategy. And yes, at that point in the game, gold is fairly easy to obtain. While you can shoot yourself in the foot with them, that's on you. Courthouses affect corporation maintenance, so they should be built in all cities with a branch. Of course, you should probably have done that anyway. I probably wouldn't run a corporation in a multiplayer game, though. It's too dependent on trade, and State Property is more reliable. Plus, it synergizes better with workshops, which are generally better than cottages most of the time after air power comes online (or at least this was how it was when I last played, which was admittedly a while ago).

However, just because something has significant investment costs to make work doesn't mean it cannot be broken. Corporations can provide yields that far surpass the investment required. There's a rather good guide to corporation use here.

But again, my primary disdain from corporations is not how unbalanced they can be, which admittedly requires a fair few things to go right. It's that they literally break some of Civilization's core principles. I've repeated this a few times, so I don't think I need to go into details again, I'm only mentioning it because you seem to be avoiding that point.

 

[Ricci]

Having a bunch of free food
...

This is the false premise you keep repeating Magil. Sory, don´t want to sound harsh though.

 

[Ricci]

But again, my primary disdain from corporations is not how unbalanced they can be, which admittedly requires a fair few things to go right. It's that they literally break some of Civilization's core principles.

Yes, and flight breaks some other core principles, so does slavery and chopping, nuclear weapons, and so on. Maybe there is a trend not to have game breaking points. I don´t share it nor I understand it from a ludic viewpoint. You seem to be a civ IV type of game lover, come on.

 

[Magil]

This is the false premise you keep repeating Magil. Sory, don´t want to sound harsh though.

It's not false, merely an oversimplification. Yes, there is an initial investment cost that will be slowly repaid, but with proper management you can do much more with that food than you could ever do with the gold you pay to get it. And in most reasonably-sized cities you will make more from the corporation than the gold cost you pay for maintenance.

Yes, and flight breaks some other core principles, so does slavery and chopping, nuclear weapons, and so on. Maybe there is a trend not to have game breaking points. I don´t share it nor I understand it from a ludic viewpoint. You seem to be a civ IV type of game lover, come on.

To give a very quick run-down: the Slavery civic is broken, I agree. I think most people who are reasonably familiar with Civilization IV would also agree. That single civic changed just about every equation present in the game. It was simply way too good. I will say that Slavery makes the game interesting, and I had fun with it, but it was far too overpowered in a typical game (the only times I could say Slavery was not all that good were for later starts, like an Industrial era start).

I don't think things like chopping, air combat, or nukes are necessarily broken though. Chopping is a strategic tool that allowed the sacrifice of long-term benefit for short-term gain (in theory). And since it used a local resource, there was nothing against the core principles that I can see. Air combat and nuclear weapons are warfare-related and merely represent escalation in ways to attack an enemy. With that said, nuclear weapons are probably too powerful, but I'm generally more forgiving in the combat portion of the game because it's very easy for late game wars to become stalemates or slogs, and things like nuclear weapons are tools that can be used to break that open. There's no real similar situation on the economic side of things--sooner or later, someone will win a peaceful victory condition, while a military standoff could last forever without some very powerful weapon to change the equation.

Rules can be bent and broken at times for a good effect. But sometimes they go too far. Corporations are definitely an example of "too far". If you struggle with making a Corporation provide more benefit than its cost, I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is, I rarely have such troubles, and from the research I've gathered, I'm hardly alone. There was some apprehension about Corporations early on, especially prior to the 3.13 patch, when maintenance costs were higher. But since then, it's quite easy to make a corporation turn a profit in a typical single-player game with normal settings.

 

[Ricci]

It's not false, merely an oversimplification. Yes, there is an initial investment cost that will be slowly repaid, but with proper management you can do much more with that food than you could ever do with the gold you pay to get it. And in most reasonably-sized cities you will make more from the corporation than the gold cost you pay for maintenance.

Same thing when building, say, a bank, or a library, etc. This is not discussed, the issue on topic here is to what extent this 'investment-repay value' goes.

To give a very quick run-down: the Slavery civic is broken, I agree. I think most people who are reasonably familiar with Civilization IV would also agree. That single civic changed just about every equation present in the game. It was simply way too good. I will say that Slavery makes the game interesting, and I had fun with it, but it was far too overpowered in a typical game (the only times I could say Slavery was not all that good were for later starts, like an Industrial era start).

It is not. It should have a proper alternative with serfdom -which it doesn´t-. But it is fair for the epoch it is set to be, period. Make use of it as far as you can, eventually it diminishes it´s power. Why it would be broken, any civ can use it , and it even reflects the historical social structure of it´s epoch (caste sys makes for a nice alternative given a specific strategy though)

None of the breaking points mentioned are broken (I just got some of the most relevant drastically changing core game mechanics prior their arrival; State property is anotherone). And of course, they make&keep the game interesting, as you said about slavery. That is the point.
Probably we just don´t share criteria on balance, as you seem to need much more narrow margins of action not to consider something unbalanced. For me, siege killing units and conquering cities was truly unbalanced, not to mention the korean Hwacha in that situation.