Civilisation Design with Negative Bonuses

[GeneralZIft]

Here is an interesting question. What do you guys think about "drawbacks" for Civs with very powerful bonuses?

Do you think it should be more commonplace? For there to be some crazy good bonus coupled with a reduction to some other trait for the Civilisation to add more nuance to each Civ without adding too much complexity.

Or do you prefer just straight "only bonuses"?

Sidenote, personally I want simplistic bonuses back because Civ 6 really went offtrack with legible understandable bonuses.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

There's a high likelki good simplistic bonuses will be back in 7 because Ed said so himself, and some of the bonuses in Leader Pass so far (2 out of 3) are quite simplistic.

I would like a Strength and Weakness in every leader, would shake up the formula quite a lot, and they relied quite a bit on it in Gathering Storm.

 

[dagriggstar]

I kind of want more bonuses other civs can interact with. I don't want like straight -20% production for instance.

Like Egyptian artefacts yield more culture and tourism. The drawback if you're Egypt is that other factions are more likely to steal them (by conquest or other means) from you (Not because you have a straight bonus to it, but because your artefacts are more desirable).

 

[Evie]

That...is actually a neat concept. Not sure how wellmit can work with sommany civs, but it is very neat.

 

[Henri Christophe]

To be fair all civs should have pro and anti bonus...

 

[xehgre]

Not every leader but more would be nice.

 

[mdl5000]

Frankly I find a lot of Civ 6 bonuses nearly incomprehensible, at least at first glance.
I'll never forget Civ 5 Aztec because it's so simple yet so compelling: Gain culture from kills. boom. there. done.

to add to the topic:
I remember Egypt in Civ 5 had that tomb which had a few more bonuses than the standard temple, but also more gold if its city was captured.
...So I would not necessarily want to ruin a player's game at the outset, but rather give players something that would make other civilizations more likely to "go after them" somehow, whether by trade or by conquest.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'll never forget Civ 5 Aztec because it's so simple yet so compelling: Gain culture from kills. boom. there. done.

That was my favorite ability. I just play civ6 with Sparta because it's ability.
Make my warmonger behavior compreensible, I need to farm culture.

 

[pineappledan]

I think some would be nice to have.

What I would do is keep the civ/leader split, and try to make it so all civilizations have a bonus that is a "rule change" bonus, which might include a drawback, while the leader bonuses are more just straight buffs.

So like the civ 5 Polynesian Wayfinding bonus would be a great "Rule Changer" (land units can embark and cross deep ocean immediately) bonus for a civ. It makes you deal with the map and prioritize settling/moving around differently than other civs.

Here's an idea for a Baltic/Lithuanian civ:
"Romuva: Cannot found a Religion. Is immune to passive religious pressure. Has a unique set of Pantheon beliefs to choose from."
So the Balts would be playing a different religious game, trying to keep other people's missionaries etc. out so they can keep their super-powerful pantheon bonuses. Their UU or UB would probably have to help reinforce that with a way of deconverting cities.

Like Egyptian artefacts yield more culture and tourism. The drawback if you're Egypt is that other factions are more likely to steal them (by conquest or other means) from you (Not because you have a straight bonus to it, but because your artefacts are more desirable).

Unique improvements kind of work in a similar way, because they make the land around your cities more valuable, and are kept on conquest. That's one of the reasons why I like UIs a lot more than UBs; they're more 'stealable', so they present a possible downside, or can make you a target.