Civ6 "Catch up" Mechanics

[EndNine]

Are there going to be "catch up" mechanics like those found in Civ4 and 5? By catch up I mean the game basically has things in place to force equalization. Expanding too fast? Take this heavy dose of unhappiness and maintenance with virtually no way to stop it, wouldn't want you to get too far ahead now. Getting too far ahead in technology? Lets make the techs cheaper for people behind and let people vote to screw you over.

The lack of an ability to get ahead quickly like what was found in Civ2 really killed the franchise for me. There was too much equalization and the ceiling on skill was too low. The more skilled player should win every time in my view. Are they going to dumb this thing down again like they have for the past 10 years? The cartoony graphics aren't giving me much hope.

 

[AriochIV]

The short answer is that we have no information about this at present.

 

[isau]

The more skilled player should win every time in my view. Are they going to dumb this thing down again like they have for the past 10 years?

If you are any good you shouldn't have to worry about anyone catching up to you and winning, "catch up" mechanic or not. If anything, the fact that you can't steam roll through science even more than you can now makes the game harder, not easier.

 

[Draco84]

I suspect the

Lets make the techs cheaper for people behind [you]

will exist

 

[EndNine]

Why would a game have built in mechanics to equalize players in the first place? I am not aware of any game in existence that actively punishes players for being better like Civ has in its last few incarnations. The only conclusion I can draw is that its an easy way to make up for poor AI coding. Every Civ since Civ1 has relied on penalties to create difficulty levels rather than progressively better AI code. Put this in an MP game and it no longer makes sense and instead creates a slog.

 

[m15a]

I am not aware of any game in existence that actively punishes players for being better like Civ has in its last few incarnations.

It's called catch-up mechanics. It's common enough that there's a term for it (coincidentally the one used in the thread title).

As for why it's done, first, it offsets the disadvantage resulting from a bad starting position. For example, if you can't generate science as fast since your land doesn't give the food needed for growth, the catch-up mechanics can make sure you don't get too far behind in science, and then have the chance to win based on good strategy.

Second, it helps the game be interesting for longer. If expanding your empire makes it stronger and thus more capable of expanding, then the game will be uneventful once you've accomplished better early expansion than the other players. And if that's the case, then the game turns into an early expansion game and all mid- and late-game mechanics and strategy are insignificant.

 

[Acken]

Why would a game have built in mechanics to equalize players in the first place?

Ever played a game that was decided after 20minutes but still played 3hours to make your friend happy ? Yeah not exactly fun. But hey you may think rage quitting is a better outcome.

I am not aware of any game in existence that actively punishes players for being better like Civ has in its last few incarnations.

What ? It's a VERY common mechanic in boardgames and video games. Not all games use it. Most of the time the good game that don't use it are also short games.

The only conclusion I can draw is that its an easy way to make up for poor AI coding.

Or it allows come backs in multiplayer. Or help the player in higher difficulties.

Every Civ since Civ1 has relied on penalties to create difficulty levels rather than progressively better AI code.

Yeah.... nobody's going to program 8 different AI. One is already a difficult task for Firaxis.

Put this in an MP game and it no longer makes sense and instead creates a slog.

Actually it makes a lot of sense in MP

 

[EndNine]

Competitive games definitely don't have these kinds of mechanics. Go look at Starcraft or something. If the game is decided in 20 minutes then obviously the other player sucks. The solution is for that player to improve, not for the game creators to introduce mechanics to make the other player worse. What a stupid argument.

 

[Acken]

If you compare Civ to Starcraft, you must read more carefully I suspect.

What a stupid argument.

But it's the winning one so I feel sorry for you

 

[Amrunril]

Why would a game have built in mechanics to equalize players in the first place? I am not aware of any game in existence that actively punishes players for being better like Civ has in its last few incarnations. The only conclusion I can draw is that its an easy way to make up for poor AI coding. Every Civ since Civ1 has relied on penalties to create difficulty levels rather than progressively better AI code. Put this in an MP game and it no longer makes sense and instead creates a slog.

Catch-up mechanics don't "actively punish" players for playing better (a mechanic like this would be called a rubber band mechanic, and developers try very hard to avoid them). They simply keep the game close enough that a player who fell behind early can get ahead with superior play. In a game that has as many snowball mechanics as civilization, and that is intended to last for hundreds of turns, this is necessary to ensure that the winner is the player who plays best for the whole game, not the one who plays best for the first 50-100 turns.

I will also note that helping the AI is definitely not the reason catch-up mechanics exist. High difficulty levels revolve around spending the early game trying desperately to catch up to the AI, a task made far easier by catch-up mechanics (especially science from trade routes). One the player breaks even with the AI, the game is mostly over, and catch up mechanics don't matter because the human player doesn't need huge tech/production etc. to conclusively beat the AI. A small lead, or even a controlled deficit, when combined with superior tactics and focus on victory conditions, is more than enough.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you are being punished to the point of losing because of catch-up mechanism, perhaps it because you are lacking the skill of the player that uses such mechanics to beat you. If it is a winning strategy, a skilled player would use it.

 

[Nick31]

But it's the winning one so I feel sorry for you

Ha, indeed. Remember "good" players in any civ need the AI to do things the human cannot... otherwise, it's done. And there are always Mods that emerge that can balance some things differently.

Plus, when you get to Acken's level, if the AI isn't cheating and attacking like a boss, you're barely awake

 

[Ryika]

If we're very petty about specifics then the Civ-Series doesn't have any "catch-up mechanics", it has "don't fall too far behind mechanics". Mechanics that are meant to allow other players to somewhat keep up, but not equalize the game on their own.

That may sound like semantics, but the difference is that, if played correctly, those mechanics simply can't "dethrone" the leading player. They merely allow them to stay in the game. And even that usually doesn't really happen. So if you're losing your lead, then you've simply not played as good as the person overtaking you.

And those kind of mechanics are great.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If we're very petty about specifics then the Civ-Series doesn't have any "catch-up mechanics", it has "don't fall too far behind mechanics". Mechanics that are meant to allow other players to somewhat keep up, but not equalize the game on their own.

That may sound like semantics, but the difference is that, if played correctly, those mechanics simply can't "dethrone" the leading player. They merely allow them to stay in And even that usually doesn't really happen. So if you're losing your lead, then you've simply not played as good as the person overtaking you.

And those kind of mechanics are great.

Yes. A great example of such mechanics is a reduced cost for techs already discovered by other civs. It also limits beelining and have reasonable "real life" basis.

 

[Sonmi]

Expanding too fast? Take this heavy dose of unhappiness and maintenance with virtually no way to stop it

No way to stop it?

No, there is a way to stop it. Create a religion focused on happiness, take the time to build circuses, and try to target as many luxury resources as possible. The ability to brainlessly spam settlers to victory is what made the game easy, there having downsides to ICS makes the game harder, not easier, and means you actually have to think on how you want to expand.

The World Council being able to screw you over, and technology becoming cheaper for people behind you, are extra challenges, it makes the skill ceiling higher, not lower, and forces you to deal with more than expansion if you want to win on higher difficulties.

 

[Battlehelm043]

Are there going to be "catch up" mechanics like those found in Civ4 and 5? By catch up I mean the game basically has things in place to force equalization. Expanding too fast? Take this heavy dose of unhappiness and maintenance with virtually no way to stop it, wouldn't want you to get too far ahead now. Getting too far ahead in technology? Lets make the techs cheaper for people behind and let people vote to screw you over.

The lack of an ability to get ahead quickly like what was found in Civ2 really killed the franchise for me. There was too much equalization and the ceiling on skill was too low. The more skilled player should win every time in my view. Are they going to dumb this thing down again like they have for the past 10 years? The cartoony graphics aren't giving me much hope.

I will say this, you do point out a flaw with the global happiness system that was scrapped in transition from CiV to Civ6. The new housing/amenity system creates a solid balance so that both Tall and Wide can equally compete. The equalization ends there, because the penalty for crummy cities and not focusing on your land and development will kill you in the long run. Now should there be ways to fight and claw your way back through tact and skill, ie diplomacy/war/trade deals, yes there should. A skillful player that gets bogged down in an early costly war shouldn't be completely unable to catch up. That would punish them too much. As for players who just don't flat out care and throw care to the wind ignoring proper development of their civ, then yes they should get punished by the game mechanics and loose to the AI or other players in the case of MP. I for one do not think it proper to decided the victor of a game of civ in 20 mins like Starcraft mainly because 1) Starcraft is a different style of game... RTS and 2) a civ game is meant to be a long long game, similar in length to Twilight Imperium... This is of course unless you play their new era scenarios they talk about being in civ 6, then I'm certain you will see 1 hour long matches...

 

[cazaderonus]

Comparing this game to starcraft or other comp games that rely on a somewhat symetrical gameplay. Meaning the environment around each player is pretty much the same and doesnt affect your playstyle much explains the lack of catch up mecanics.

In civ, the environment draws your gameplan entirely. Meaning that your need to avoid this simple thing predeterpine the outcome of the game. CiV already had some balance issues regarding certain lux or strategic resources so even catch up mecanics were weak to tame a amazing start location.

So yeah, you re playing the wrong game.

 

[Socrates99]

Comparing this game to starcraft or other comp games that rely on a somewhat symetrical gameplay. Meaning the environment around each player is pretty much the same and doesnt affect your playstyle much explains the lack of catch up mecanics.

In civ, the environment draws your gameplan entirely. Meaning that your need to avoid this simple thing predeterpine the outcome of the game. CiV already had some balance issues regarding certain lux or strategic resources so even catch up mecanics were weak to tame a amazing start location.

So yeah, you re playing the wrong game.

Go ahead and say it, salt. You mean salt. God, I loved a good location with a lot of salt.

 

[killmeplease]

definitely civ lacks chatch-up mechanics (those are also called "rubber bands", this term has come from racing simulators) thats why its so boring in the end game or even in the mid game (once you've got ahead). the player should not feel secure at any stage in the game. it also lacks dynamism, i mean in civ4 a backwards player could build 100 elephants and crush you with a sudden strike but in civ5 its mostly impossible because of 1upt and super-cities. actually there could be different ways to undermine one's leadership with culture, diplomacy, espionage or whatever.

 

[JtW]

i mean in civ4 a backwards player could build 100 elephants and crush you with a sudden strike but in civ5 its mostly impossible because of 1upt and super-cities.

That't my main problem with Civ5 - the AI being unable to be a military threat to you unless they outpace you in everything. This is my main hope (and worry) for Civ 6 - that they manage to make the AI a threat again.