Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Sep 5, 2021.

  1. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I understand this, yet the caravans building roads is more realistic in terms of how common they were in ancient/classical times. I wouldn't mind if they find some compromise that makes it a little easier to get them built, but I'll stick with the way Civ6 does it over going back to workers building them everywhere.
     
  2. Laurana Kanan

    Laurana Kanan Don’t underestimate who I am. Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,534
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Near the Greatest Snow on Earth
    Moderator Action: Deleted several off-topic and trolling posts. This is not the place to have a discussion/argument concerning Tibet & China. There's a whole off-topic sub-forum where you can do that. Please keep to the topic of this thread and more importantly to that of Civ 6 only.
     
    Hellenism Salesman and Zaarin like this.
  3. AntSou

    AntSou Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,039
    I prefer the simpler portrait-like animations and simpler leader traits of Civ4 over complex leader animations and the sometimes overly specific abilities of leaders in Civ5/Civ6.
     
    AsH2, 7daysofwar and topsecret like this.
  4. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,333
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    I prefer good static artwork, like Humankind's, wherever possible, but I'm afraid the 'Rising Expectations' of the Gaming Masses will make fully-animated Leaders a minimum requirement for at least the foreseeable future.

    On the other hand, I firmly believe the way to get in-game Civ progression is by having the Unique Abilities of the Leaders (and other Uniques of the Civ) be changeable in-game. Roosevelt can get Religion, Poundmaker can become a First Sea Lord, Ambiorix can Out-Mansa the world in his search for Gold and Trade - it all depends on the in-game situation and reaching (sometimes possibly unwillingly) certain Triggers for UU/UA/UB change. A single Leader trait or Agenda that lasts 6000 + years, especially compared to the multiple dynastic Leaders of Old World or the sequential different Factions in Humankind, now feels kinda Dull.
     
    Zegangani and Hellenism Salesman like this.
  5. AntSou

    AntSou Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,039
    Could you expand on that? I think I get the general idea, but that might be difficult to keep track of. If the abilities keep changing, how do you keep it in line with the character's personality, and wouldn't it become disorienting? (a complaint a lot of people have in regards to HK Culture switching).

    What about recruitable leaders, which keep their static bonuses but make it easy to switch? (hence the need for greater simplicity in character artwork and abilities)

    E.g. I could start with Churchill in the Ancient Era, pay to get Elizabeth in the Medieval, do a quick switch to Victoria in the Renaissance and then play Churchill again for the rest of the game. It would be up to me. Each has their own personality traits and bonuses.

    The Civ England would have a unique unit, a unique building and a unique governor (or more than one, but mutually exclusive). Perhaps also a unique national wonder? In the end it's always England, and you'd soon learn each leader's personality, so it never gets disorienting like HK might.

    You could then also define other rules at game setup. E.g. Set a max of recruitable leaders pre-game (e.g. three), even if the full roster for each Civ is larger thanks to DLC and Mods. The three recruitable leaders for any given game can be picked or randomized. Another option would be to make it impossible to select the same leader twice, or make it so that the AI can but not the player. Finally, have a free for all option, allowing anyone to recruit any leader from any Civ (though the Civ would still remain the same throughout).
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
  6. Zegangani

    Zegangani King

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2020
    Messages:
    661
    Gender:
    Male
    That sounds like an interesting Game Feature and would add so much replayability to it. Though, tbf, I don't think we will ever get something in that direction in a Civ Game. Let's say we have 25 Civs in a Vanilla game, making 3-4 Leaders for each of them would mean making 75-100 Fully animated and Voiced Leaders, add to that some DLCs and Expansions... No chance Firaxis will ever make that happen, even if they reduce the total Civs we get in the Game. So this would only be a thing if Firaxis switches to static Leaders, as Boris Gudenuf mentioned, something like in Civ IV, or Like the Governor Portraits. Speaking of, what if we could switch between Leaders like we can change Governors for a City? But only when you have enough of a resource/currency, like Stability, Orders or Authority, that you have to spend in order to change a Leader. But even then, we would have plenty of Leader who each needs a Unique Ability, UI and/or UU.

    IMHO, Boris Gudenuf's Suggestion is the more optimal solution to a Civ Progression System. Unlocking certain Abilities based on the InGame Environment and Situation as well as through some kind of Quests/Criteria would be generic but also more dynamic. It also leaves room for Progression outside of the "Civ/Leader" bubble, that forces the Player to certain Playstyles and restrict him from trying other ways to manage its Empire (Why should I have to pick a Culture Civ on order to go for a Culture Victory and a Military one when I want to go for Conquest? I want to play with Harald and go for a Science Vicory without having other Civs with Abilities in that Field that makes it impossible to compete with them).
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    Hellenism Salesman, AntSou and PiR like this.
  7. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,526
    I can’t support any ideas that want civ to shift in the direction of fluid leaders or otherwise changing the identity of your civilization in the middle of the game.

    The aspect of taking a single civilization throughout history is a key component to the identity of the series. If I pick Babylon, I want Babylon - I don’t want to suddenly become Australia later on.

    As for evolving leaders: this is getting so complicated when the same premise of having different but permanent circumstancial bonuses could be accomplished by other ways, like civic/tenet choices or some other game system they come up.

    And though I support a deeper implementation of internal politics, I certainly don’t want Civ to become a character-focused game like Old World or Crusader Kings.

    These ideas feel like “flavor of the month” suggestions that are just contra to the identity and allure of the series. Civ is Civ - let it be Civ.

    I do agree that civ and leader abilities have become bloated and lead to railroaded playstyles. I would fully support a return to more simplistic modifier bonuses like in Civ 4.
     
  8. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,959
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    Agreed. I enjoy Crusader Kings, but I don't want that kind of thing in Civ. No civ changes. No leader changes. Dynamic, circumstantial ability adaptations could be interesting if done right, but not tied to changes in a civ's identity. In Civ, the leader is the face of the civilization; I don't want to pop into England's diplomacy screen and find the entire face of the civ has changed.

    However, I disagree with this part. I appreciate that civs have become more unique as the series has progressed. From fully interchangeable civs in the early games to more or less interchangeable civs in Civ4 to modestly unique civs in Civ5 to fully unique, asymmetric civs in Civ6. That being said, I'm willing to compromise some uniqueness in order to avoid gimmicks like Civ6's Babylon (but I do love civs that break the usual mold like Civ5 Venice and Civ6 Maori--but there's a difference between "doing something entirely unique" and "just being a lazy gimmick because we were out of ideas").

    I'd be up for traditionally animated portraits, but unfortunately no one believes in traditional animation anymore. :(
     
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  9. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,333
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    @Zegangani - exactly right. I would absolutely LOVE multiple Leaders, like a half-dozen or more Historical or Generic or Of-the-Wall Leader per Civ, but it just ain't economically feasible - and even attempting it might tie up every 3D animation artist on the planet for years!

    That's why the 'invisible' (in the sense of not needing new graphic/voice acting resources) changing of Uniques of the Leader/Civ is I think the way to get the effect and not break the resource and cash bank in gaming.

    Here's my very basic outline of how I'd work it:

    First, changes come as a result of the in-game situation, not some arbitrary 'Era Change' - I've posted on this before.

    So, for instance, around 600 BCE Somebody Else or You get an Axial cultural/religious Impact. This is a Singularity Event that changes how the Civs approach almost everything in their attitude and relationship with Religion and the World: it could be the codification of Hindu Brahman or Buddhist teachings, dissemination of Kon Fu Tse's Analects, the first speculations of Greek Natural Philosophy, or a Monotheistic Religion ala the Jewish Yahweh. Whichever happens, the first one to spread to your Civ causes a change in some Uniques. Some of those (Civ Uniques) will be directly related to the type of Singularity Event that reaches you first: Hinduist teachings could result in a change of Culture (caste system, rigidity of social order), Buddhism or Monotheism to a change in Religion, Confucius' teachings to a change in Government Efficiency (the Confucian-trained elite administrators), Natural Philosophy to a boost in Science, etc.

    But for a Leader example, let's take a nice anachronistic American Leader: Teddy Roosevelt (and no, let's not put him in a toga or chalmys, they tried costume changes in a previous Civ iteration, and it was Ghastly). He would start the game with two Unique Attributes, say his current Combat Strength bonus on Home Continent, which is pretty generic when you think about it, and an early Unique related to his career, which might be easier recruitment of Militia (volunteer Rough Riders made generic) for the army (I'd have all military Units divided into Professionals, which can be promoted but cost a lot to build and Maintain, and Amateurs called up strictly for the war or Event and disbanded afterwards, which are nearly free to build but require specific Social/Civic choices, and are free to maintain except that they take population out of your cities/improvements/districts, etc). With the Axial Change Option reached, you could swap out one Leader Unique (and a Civ Unique, but that's for another Post). Possibilities for TR's "New Unique" might be:

    The Manly Life: Can establish Pasture Settlements for free (basically, Ranches to claim and exploit new territory)
    The White Fleet: Sending a Warship to a City/Port belonging to another group (Civ, City State, etc) provides a Diplomatic Bonus with that group.
    Progressive Reform: Can freely change one Civic/Social Policy choice, and gets slight bonus to Industry/Production in all cities (reform of working conditions, anti-corruption initiatives)
    The Commish: Increased Loyalty and slight increase to all other factors in the Capital (a nod to TR's stint as a reforming Police Commissioner in New York City)

    Specific Uniques related to, say, Units from TR's career (Ironclad Battleships, Rough Rider cavalry, etc) would have to wait for the proper Technological period in the game - which means very specific Uniques for any Leader would be somewhat related to his/her actual historical place in history. In addition to the somewhat-related -to-reality type Uniques listed above for TR, there could also be a set of 'completely generic' Uniques available that address Basic Currencies in the game - like a Religious or Trade/Gold, or Science, or Production, or completely Aggressive Military related Unique.

    Uniques not chosen remain available when the next Singularity Event hits you, but you do not have the option of keeping all the old Uniques unchanged - Singularity Events are meant to represent the kind of Massive Change in society that the arbitrary 'Era Changes' show in-game now: you do not have the option to stay in Classical when the world goes Medieval on you but with this system, you do have the option to keep as much as possible of the 'Classical' society/Civ if there is no pressing need for completely radical change in everything. If your Roman or Han Empires haven't collapsed into City States, you have no need to go completel Medieval or wait for a Renaissance - yet.

    By providing a minimum 6 - 8 generic and Vaguely Related to What's His Face Leader Uniques for each Singularity Event, some of which only Unlock for specific Singularity Events (I could easily see specific ones related to Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or having an Alphabetic Writing System when Moveable Type is discovered) it would take a lot of repeat games before you would find yourself playing with the same Leader with the same Unique attributes throughout a game.
     
    Zegangani likes this.
  10. Leucarum

    Leucarum Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,252
    Gender:
    Male
    The other problem with multiple leaders is that some civs would struggle to support that. Particularly those for whom their recorded history is fragmentary...
     
    AntSou and Zaarin like this.
  11. AntSou

    AntSou Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,039
    But wouldn't it become difficult to test and balance such leaders? That's a ton of potential unique abilities on a single leader. When I think about such a system, the only thing that seems feasible to me would be for all the abilities to be generic and the same for every leader. I don't see how the same Singularity event could trigger a potential unique ability for every leader in the game. At some point you run out of abilities, or they just kind of become a bit meaningless, or things just break apart because there aren't enough hours to test everything.

    There's something in that proposed system that sounds exponential. E.g. you want to add a new singularity event to the game, but you need to create 50 new abilities to go with it (one for each leader). Or you add a new leader and you need a dozen new abilities. Even if it works, at some point wouldn't the leader just become an animation? If you have a lot of potential variability on a single leader, it does add repeatability, but it's repeatability that comes at the cost of familiarity, and familiarity is kind of the essence of Civ leaders.
     
  12. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,333
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    It would be a lot of work to come up with the Abilities and to test and balance them, but only if there was any evidence that anything in Civ VI had been tested and balanced, and I submit that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. And note that each Leader in the game now has, basically, 2 Unique Aspects plus an 'Agenda' but in the proposed draft system you can only change one of them with each Singularity Event, so you could be over a third of the way through a game before your 'entire' Leader changed his/her stripes. Note also that right now the game has numerous Alternate Leaders, each with their own Uniques and Agendas, and they would become redundant with this system - nice to have for a specific purpose, but not required for variety's sake.

    I submit that the limiting factor in variety in Civ now is the absurd resource sink that is the animated, voice-acted Leader representation. That is what limits the number and variety of Civs in the game. A coded set of Uniques, by contrast, is Dirt Cheap. Testing would be time-consuming, but there are thousands of potential Beta-Testers out there ready to volunteer to consume their time, and they don't even have to be paid for it.

    If you were playing France in Civ VI right now you'd have to keep track of Uniques for 3 different Leaders and 2 sets each for England, Mongolia, China, India or Greece. That's 7 sets of 'alternate' Uniques (and I've probably missed some others) that would be part of a One Leader package for each Civ in the proposed system. Given only 1 Leader/Civ to keep track of, I don't think there's that much of a 'familiarity' problem. Humankind runs into exactly that 'identification' problem because there are no on-screen graphic clues: your cities keep their names from previous Faction Choices, even Emblematic Units are not that distinctive graphically, and your opponents are identified by generic Avatars that don't distinctly represent the Faction they are playing. Civ avoids almost all of that by having a distinctive set of animated Civ-specific leaders, the Leader portrait staring at you from the top of the screen, and Civ-specific City names, Civ-specific graphics (or at least, Regional-Specific), Unique Civ abilities and units and only One Leader for that Civ to keep track of. I'm not proposing to change any of that precisely because of the Humankind experience.

    Some Civs are in fact impossible to include at all given Civ's use of a personalized named Leader, city list and individual attributes: the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoans, Olmecs, etc.

    I assumed that many 'Uniques' would be Generic for two reasons:
    One was precisely what you mention, that some Civs will be handicapped by being short-lived, with few 'real' Leaders to draw from, and having a civilization with very limited attributes IRL. Case in point, Sparta of classical Greece, which was so completely militarized that it produced Absolutely No Culture: no art, poetry, prose, sculpture, had no foreign Trade, made no original contributions to religion or science. Without Generics, it would be almost as impossible to include in the game as the Olmecs.
    The second reason is that every Leader and the majority of the Civs included in the Civ game series are specific in time: Rome has been in every game, but there are no characteristics or attributes or Uniques for an Industrial or Modern Roman Empire - only what we can sort of extrapolate using modern Italy, which is not a good match. Likewise, the United States in the Ancient or Classical Eras is a Fantasy - we don't really have any Uniques for it that aren't anachronistic.
    So, while I showed a possible interpretation of Roosevelt's career that could produce Ancient/Classical Uniques, even that will not be possible for many Civs and their Leaders because of lack of (reliable) information. That means we either relegate them to the Olmec/Minoan/Indus Unincludable ile, or use Generics and let the gamer choose what works in their specific game for some of the characteristics of the Leader and Civ they are playing.
     
    Zegangani, Leucarum and AntSou like this.
  13. Leucarum

    Leucarum Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,252
    Gender:
    Male
    Uniques also don't have to be tied to leaders specifically. It would still be possible to have one eternal leader but have their civ abilities evolve over time. That would solve a lot of the issues at hand... I.e. the civ evolves rather than the leader.
     
  14. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,333
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    I concentrated on the Leader possibilities because of the overwhelming problem of how to get around the resource sink that is the animated/voice-acted Leader portrayals, but of course Civs as a whole could hit the Singularity Events and change as well. In fact, this would be the primary place to ring in changes in Unique Units/Districts. They would be much less of a graphics resource sink, since Re-Skins can speed up the process immensely (and nobody can tell or care much that a member of a unit has the wrong style of beard or is wearing the wrong cravat).

    Just for an easy example, imagine a Britain/England Civ which, in successive Singularity Decision Events, has the option of getting the following UUs and/or Unique Districts or Improvements:

    Eolderman (Anglo-Saxon)
    Select Fyrd (Anglo-Saxon)
    Longbowman
    Billman
    Race-Built Galleon
    Fortified Manor (improvement)
    74-Gun Ship-of-the-Line
    Royal Dockyard (District)
    Redcoat
    Congreve Rocket
    Wedgewood Factory (Building)
    Battle Cruiser
    Spitfire

    Obviously, not all Civs are going to be able to generate a list that covers this amount of time, but just about any Civ can have potentially more than a single UU or District . . .
     
    Victoria and Leucarum like this.
  15. Leucarum

    Leucarum Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,252
    Gender:
    Male
    It kind of reminds me of the quests in Beyond Earth. Maybe have branching/mutually exclusive options when players build an UU or UD for the first time so that they can customize their play through. That would minimize extra dev time and also allow players some more customisation options.

    Another advantage for abilities developing era to era is that you get rid of the problem when civs only having late game bonuses are a lot worse than those with early era bonuses.
     
    AntSou likes this.
  16. aieeegrunt

    aieeegrunt King

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    780
    Gender:
    Male
    I’d like to see a deeper and more nuanced expansion on the concept of Eurekas and Inspirations. Like instead of “build two galleys, get such and such a tech half off” something like each galley you build and each combat you win OR LOSE (because often that is the best teacher) would contribute a smaller but more repeatable discount towards relevant techs and civics

    Say losing a bunch of units to a civ that has a superior military tech should give you progress towards that tech as one example

    Building a bunch of pastures and horse units and fighting with and against them gives you more and more and more credit towards the next horsie tech.

    Honesfly the counterintuitive nonsense board game style mechanic of “the more builders or settlers or districts you build, the more expensive they get” needs to go. The more dams I build the more efficient I get at it and the better and cheaper I can make them. It’s at complete odds with reality.
     
    Time Tested, AntSou and Zegangani like this.
  17. sonicmyst

    sonicmyst Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,326
    Location:
    Philippines
    How about making "culture" similar to "religion" in such a way that when a civ has majority culture of another civ, they can inherit some unique ability of a foreign civ? Tourism can also have a tweak like this instead of just filling up a tourist bucket.
     
  18. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,593
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Honestly I would really love this idea.
    Of course I don't know how ideally it would work though considering to make it feasible you would have to find at least 3 leaders for every single civ which could be difficult for some.

    Though randomizing leaders would definitely work I'm not sure if I'd use it all the time and that would limit the leader pool for certain civs.

    But with your England example it can work easily. Of course by changing leader it would also make since that having a "revolution" by changing your leader would ultimately cause you to change your type of government as well.

    I've talked about integrating religion into the culture victory for the future games anyway. I can see this happening to tie them together even more.
     
    Kupe Navigator likes this.
  19. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,432
    That's exactly how it used to be in civ 5 before gnk.
     
  20. AntSou

    AntSou Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,039
    I don't think this is a reasonable idea regardless of how things are supposed to work in reality. I'm also not sure what's board gamey about it, but then I'm not a board game expert.

    As it works at the moment, within a short time most things would take a single turn to build. How do you solve this?
     

Share This Page