Conclusions on playing Civ5-6 back & forth.

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,618
What would you think it has to be kept in 7 from 6 that couldn't go back to 5 ?

For me, it's the Eurekas. Don't get me wrong, i'm not totally comfortable with them as a player, and as designing philosophy it doesn't fulfil its goal. (the one I suppose at least : "playing the map" and develop differently according to your environment, like ideas like "if I spawn near the sea, I should be able to travel in it earlier than other civs", which kinda works, but players that desesperate for sea travel will just pop a city near it, not live with what they have at beginning, like settling on spot, or might reload the game entirely)

Thing is, the player will force himself to complete the little quests for each tech, so he will go faster in science, whereas it is supposed to work the other way around, be passive bonuses given by your surroundings, not your direct action. (I believe)

So we could at least "improve" (depending on the point of view) this for 7.

Ironically, if I don't feel totally comfortable with them is because it happens to me quite often to have the next techs to pick without a single Eureka. And then I feel I missed something, I'm unhappy. I guess that's a pervert effect of having active actions to do in order to get those Eurekas.

On the other hand, while I like to have some event that makes me earn some era score, I'm happy, alas in Deity I often fell short to have golden ages, which make me very unhappy.

However, "era score" actions are less active and documented than Eurekas, so it should fit my wishes for Eurekas instead. But often not everything implemented has the desired effects, or unhappy side ones. I think that it's because era score is more or less acquired like eurekas that it ends up being yet other ones, like the Civ1 tech tree that we knew by advance through playing or looking at the picture in the game box. (I think there was a poster of the tech tree in it) That's why random techs has been invented, alas I'm unsure whether the AI knows it anyway and cheats so I never pick it.

So, we should try at least to find ways to make "Eurekas" more systematic, less predictable, a sum of determinism and randomness. One possible way would be to make the eurekas granted provided you spawn near some feature. But as the player would learn to know them and colonize the approppriate lands, they should also have a range of randomness : for example, the eurekas for boosting a tech might not be always the same. The more possible eurekas for the same tech, the better. But it seems difficult to achieve with logic. Let's try this : if you spawn near water, coast or river or lake or oasis, a given player might have the sailing boost only if he spawns near coast, and another one only if he spawns near oasis. Another example : military techs could be researched faster if you live in the hills. Or if you spawn near copper. Or if you spawn in the steppes. Or you have only one city and are de facto a city-State. (every civ would be candidate for this, unless we change the "only one settler first" rule, and many others in its track)

But that wouldn't work. Why ? Because when playing Civ5 after 6, I felt eurekas were missing because they were giving a whole new aspect of interactivity. A gritty, shining aspect of abundance. More sense of the universe of the game. More things to do.

And I don't know if "more systematic, less predictable" eurekas would have the same effect. What do you think about that ? (difficult question, heh)

Anyway. What would you think it has to be kept in 7 from 6 that couldn't go back to 5 ?
 

universecreep

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
78
I like the districts and the limited stacking of 6 so I'd keep that in 7. I'd turf the religion aspect of the game; unit spam isn't fun. I'd go back to making religion like it was in IV, not an integral part of the game but it can have an impact on relations. In addition, no unit spam! I'd also turf the world congress the way it was implemented.

I prefer the diplomacy of 5 and it had a better world congress so I'd pull that from 5 too. The unit movement was a little more manageable.

Going back to alpha centauri, I'd take the world congress they had from that game in bring it forward to 7. That was very fun.
 

AntSou

Deity
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
2,510
I like the idea that certain practices should passively contribute towards your technological and civic direction.

For instance, in Civ 5 the more you engaged in combat, the more points you gained towards Great Generals. This was removed from Civ 6 and turned into an ability for a couple of unique units.

This kind of design should be applied imo to more facets of the game.

Examples:

- You settle on coast. Rather than gaining an immediate Eureka boost, you gain a passive amount each turn which in time will result in you unlocking the tech without even needing to focus on it.

- The randomness effect which you speak of could be in the form of a small chance of gaining some progress towards a tech which neighbouring Civs have already unlocked. Whether you have roads to them, open borders, relationship, ongoing trade, the amount of Civs, etc... all of that would make it more or less likely to get you a small yield towards that tech each turn.
 

ezzlar

Emperor
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Messages
1,778
Infixo has developed a mod that randomises the Eureka requirements and keep them hidden until you meet them. So the specific Eureka for sailing will change every time you play and you will not know in advance what it is. It´s called Real Eurekas.
 

DizzKneeLand33

Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
625
Location
Kansas City
I actually modded out Eurekas and Inspirations and it's resulted in a much more balanced game, slowing down the speed of techs/civics. It seems we all like different features of the game.

The random tech and civics trees are something I have really come to enjoy. It very much changes the game when Astrology is deep in the era, and when playing on higher levels, if Archery is a really long way away you have to tread very carefully.
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,409
Location
Leeds, UK
Backtrack on districts.

Some districts are clearly absolutely necessary.
E.g: Harbour (so near coastal cities can build ships).
Canal (to traverse and connect seas/oceans).
Dam (to prevent flooding and provide power).
Spaceport (a victory specific district is fine).
Aerodrome/airport (ok)
Water park
Observatory (IRL these are large constructions so giving them an entire district is ok IMO).

Backtrack on religious warfare. (Should have been a game mode).
Civ V style passive religion is better.

Bring back Civ V ideologies.
And city culture flipping.

Axe loyalty and mikey mouse governors.
Civ V puppets are much better.
Even better earlier Civ games used governors to puppet cities. That.
 

DeutschDachs

Emperor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Knowing that the developers have been taking in fan input, I'm going to stick up for the religious victory. I agree that it could definitely use an upgrade over spamming the same couple units over and over but I really like having an excuse to really focus on making my religion great and spreading it across the world rather than just some passive money/stats from cities converted. I wonder if a religion tree could be implemented like the new culture tree to provide more interesting abilities, buildings, and units to religion focused Civs. It could be a smaller tree to simulate the drop off effect of religion in the modern age as Civ has tried to emulate in Civ IV, V, and VI. Currently even in its somewhat limited state, religious victory is probably my 2nd/3rd favorite victory type. If the AI could be improved to interact with it more I think that would go a long way to make it be more interesting. Civs should be willing to go to war if they don't wish to be converted but right now they merely complain and denounce you which makes victory too easy over any Civ that hasn't invested in Apostles.

Anyway, I just think that rather than getting rid of it entirely it would be better to try to build on what they created in VI. Having more victory types like VI makes the game more interesting to me than what it was in IV and V
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
I'd love to implement some of the game modes such as Corporations and Monopolies and Barbarian Clans into the base game.

I'd replace loyalty entirely with a new mechanic such as cultural identity/ethnicity.

I don't mind keeping a separate civics tree from technology, but civics should be more like a web where Code of Laws is in the middle and then you choose which branch of culture to go down. For example, a Cultural Branch of Education would coincide with the tech tree and unlock after resarching Writing.
That way each civilization can develop their own culture the way they want.
Knowing that the developers have been taking in fan input, I'm going to stick up for the religious victory. I agree that it could definitely use an upgrade over spamming the same couple units over and over but I really like having an excuse to really focus on making my religion great and spreading it across the world rather than just some passive money/stats from cities converted. I wonder if a religion tree could be implemented like the new culture tree to provide more interesting abilities, buildings, and units to religion focused Civs. It could be a smaller tree to simulate the drop off effect of religion in the modern age as Civ has tried to emulate in Civ IV, V, and VI. Currently even in its somewhat limited state, religious victory is probably my 2nd/3rd favorite victory type. If the AI could be improved to interact with it more I think that would go a long way to make it be more interesting. Civs should be willing to go to war if they don't wish to be converted but right now they merely complain and denounce you which makes victory too easy over any Civ that hasn't invested in Apostles.

Anyway, I just think that rather than getting rid of it entirely it would be better to try to build on what they created in VI. Having more victory types like VI makes the game more interesting to me than what it was in IV and V
I'd rather they implement religious conversion into the cultural victory personally. At least preserving your own religion in your civilization should be one of the requirements for the cultural victory, along with tourism. You can spread your own to other civilizations to at least stop their chances of winning.
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,409
Location
Leeds, UK

KayAU

Emperor
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
1,052
Eurekas and inspirations are a great idea, but I hate how they're implemented. The whole mechanic of swapping out techs before they're fully researched so as not to waste beakers, doing these little "fetch quests" which may otherwise be irrelevant to your plans in order to get the boost...I get that this is considered "active play", but it has always felt gamey and counterintuitive to me, and active play isn't worth much when you're repeating the same stuff every time.

As I said, I do like the idea. Having your civilization develop differently depending on circumstances is a good concept, but as with so many of Civ 6's good ideas, the implementation needed to be refined and overhauled. For starters, I would not have the boost be a bulk amount of beakers, but rather a percentage modifier to research speed. That would mean if you want a tech early, you may be better off starting research early. Next, I would have fewer "have N of X" triggers, as these often encourage you to do irrelevant stuff...such as building two field cannons in order to get to Democracy quicker. While less active, I think it would have been better to have conditions which are more about the circumstances of the map and civ. Conditions such has having found a natural wonder, settling a city on the coast, or being the target of a declaration of war, are all fine.
 

Lord Lakely

Idea Fountain
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,006
Location
Belgium
As I said, I do like the idea. Having your civilization develop differently depending on circumstances is a good concept, but as with so many of Civ 6's good ideas, the implementation needed to be refined and overhauled. For starters, I would not have the boost be a bulk amount of beakers, but rather a percentage modifier to research speed. That would mean if you want a tech early, you may be better off starting research early. Next, I would have fewer "have N of X" triggers, as these often encourage you to do irrelevant stuff...such as building two field cannons in order to get to Democracy quicker. While less active, I think it would have been better to have conditions which are more about the circumstances of the map and civ. Conditions such has having found a natural wonder, settling a city on the coast, or being the target of a declaration of war, are all fine.
I'm pretty sure the guy with the Zakharov avatar will agree, but Eureka's and Inspirations function a lot better with a blind or randomized tech tree. I've always played with the randomized tech tree on since its implementation and never looked back. When I designed my own Civ 7 vision for fun, I decided to make a distinction between discovering the technology (= the scientific breakthrough) and unlocking it (= integrating the technology into your society). The first part could be caused by a triggered key event (a Eureka!) or after generalist research in a chosen scientific branch (engineering, agriculture, statecraft, etc). The second part would be achieved a lump sum of Science to unlock the technology and reap its benefits. (a large cost upon discovery that will go down as the game goes on).

I've never played Humankind myself (can't comment on its Science system), but I have played Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion 2. Both of those games had incredibly well-designed technology systems. Alpha Centauri's semi-random research and Master of Orion 2's choice paths are two brilliant systems that could refresh the way Civ does technology as well. It would be great if Civ took a few ideas from them and, ahem, adjusted them to fit their vision like I have done.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
What the hell is wrong with you people wanting to get rid of loyalty? It is the single best mechanic in Civ6 and must be kept for Civ7. :gripe:
There's a loyalty system in Civ6? Weird it doesn't do anything. :coffee:
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,207
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
What would you think it has to be kept in 7 from 6 that couldn't go back to 5 ?
Heaps. Civ 6 was (while far from perfect) a return to the direction that 4 was going in where most every turn there were interesting decisions to be made. Too much of 5 is just clicking next turn. So it's hard for me to single out one or two things; so I'll just rattle off a bunch of stuff that I want to stay in 7 some form or other. The movement rules (best in the history of the game!!!); the split tech-civic trees; loyalty; districts; individual great people giving specific rewards; individual city states giving specifc rewards; the religious victory; and no doubt a few more things I'll add at 3am!
I'd also like eurekas and inspirations to stay, but I'd rather the game had better pacing, and they may be too big a hinderance for that.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Heaps. Civ 6 was (while far from perfect) a return to the direction that 4 was going in where most every turn there were interesting decisions to be made. Too much of 5 is just clicking next turn. So it's hard for me to single out one or two things; so I'll just rattle off a bunch of stuff that I want to stay in 7 some form or other. The movement rules (best in the history of the game!!!); the split tech-civic trees; loyalty; districts; individual great people giving specific rewards; individual city states giving specifc rewards; the religious victory; and no doubt a few more things I'll add at 3am!
I'd also like eurekas and inspirations to stay, but I'd rather the game had better pacing, and they may be too big a hinderance for that.
I agree with all of this except Religious Victory, which I think may be the single worst thing in all of Civ6. I think religion should contribute to other victories (especially Culture Victory) but not be a victory in and of itself. Active religion spread also needs to die. In general, I want to see religion overhauled from top to bottom in Civ7--I think what CK3 has going on is a good place to start. I'm also iffy about loyalty. As it exists now, it's completely irrelevant, but the idea was good (that could be Civ6's epitaph). I'd like to see Civ7 tie loyalty to individual citizens who have religious and cultural identities, which could also be related to immigration mechanics. As it stands now, loyalty is utterly irrelevant in all but extreme situations.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,207
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
I agree with all of this except Religious Victory, which I think may be the single worst thing in all of Civ6. I think religion should contribute to other victories (especially Culture Victory) but not be a victory in and of itself. Active religion spread also needs to die. In general, I want to see religion overhauled from top to bottom in Civ7--I think what CK3 has going on is a good place to start. I'm also iffy about loyalty. As it exists now, it's completely irrelevant, but the idea was good (that could be Civ6's epitaph). I'd like to see Civ7 tie loyalty to individual citizens who have religious and cultural identities, which could also be related to immigration mechanics. As it stands now, loyalty is utterly irrelevant in all but extreme situations.

Thematically the religious victory belongs as it has been as big a driver of world history as war or scientific or cultural advancement. Mechanically it's a never ending "conflict" which I quite like. I'll agree with some criticisms that suggest there needs to be a bit more variety to it, though I don't think unit variety is the be all and end all outside of military units. It's certainly easier to implement to a satisfactory level than any diplomatic victory. I don't know enough about CK3 to comment on that comparison.

I think loyalty is great for dealing with irritations like foward settling in either SP or MP; without turning peaceful players into war mongers with penalities. It makes life more difficult for war mongers too as they cannot just take one city off the edge of a distant empire and sit on it building strength. I do prefer how it is implemented in 6 compared to 4, where it was more a slow death of a thousand cuts; and it was hard not to to hurt neighbours you wanted to be on good terms with. I certainly agree that a more nunaced system would be good :)
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
773
I think what CK3 has going on is a good place to start.
The problem with religion in CK3 is that it is extremely boring as a game mechanic and you can basically forget it about for the entire game. Civ6 has problems with religion but I don't think going in the direction of CK3 is a good idea.

As it stands now, loyalty is utterly irrelevant in all but extreme situations.
Loyalty stops the AI from turning the map into a Jackson Pollock painting and is a good mechanic based on that alone. AI settling in the base game is absurd and loyalty fixes some of the major issues with it.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Thematically the religious victory belongs as it has been as big a driver of world history as war or scientific or cultural advancement. Mechanically it's a never ending "conflict" which I quite like. I'll agree with some criticisms that suggest there needs to be a bit more variety to it, though I don't think unit variety is the be all and end all outside of military units. It's certainly easier to implement to a satisfactory level than any diplomatic victory.
States are not and never have been what drive religion, though. I'd like to see religion removed from something the player controls to something the player responds to. So you can set a state religion, decide to tolerate or persecute a religion, perhaps even reform a religion--but religion itself is at a level removed from the player's control. There's not really a space for a religious victory in that context. Civ6's handling of religion is, IMO, extremely dissatisfactory, and RV is responsible for at least 60% of that. I think the need for revision becomes especially apparent when exactly one religious civ in Civ6 actually founded its religion--Arabia. Christianity didn't originate in Georgia or Spain or Russia. Buddhism didn't originate with the Khmer or Japan. Hinduism didn't originate in Indonesia. Civ4 and Civ5 handled religion okay, but still with a lot of room for improvement.

I think loyalty is great for dealing with irritations like foward settling in either SP or MP; without turning peaceful players into war mongers with penalities. It makes life more difficult for war mongers too as they cannot just take one city off the edge of a distant empire and sit on it building strength. I do prefer how it is implemented in 6 compared to 4 where it was more a slow death of a thousand cuts; and it was hard to to hurt neighbours you wanted to be on good terms with. I certainly agree that a more nunaced system would be good :)
The problem with religion in CK3 is that it is extremely boring as a game mechanic and you can basically forget it about for the entire game. Civ6 has problems with religion but I don't think going in the direction of CK3 is a good idea.


Loyalty stops the AI from turning the map into a Jackson Pollock painting and is a good mechanic based on that alone. AI settling in the base game is absurd and loyalty fixes some of the major issues with it.
Yes, the basic idea is good; I think it just needs to be iterated on a bit.

The problem with religion in CK3 is that it is extremely boring as a game mechanic and you can basically forget it about for the entire game. Civ6 has problems with religion but I don't think going in the direction of CK3 is a good idea.
Obviously copying CK3's system directly won't work in the context of Civ. But I think the ways it handles religious denominations, it removes religion from direct player control, and it uses religion to form diplomatic blocs is a good source of inspiration. Civ6's active religion is tedious, not engaging. (CK3 isn't perfect, either, though. E.g., it ignores that Miaphysites and Orthodox generally got along, that Syriac and Coptic Christians were politically distinct but theologically united, or that Eastern clergy are not celibate, among other errors.)
 
Top Bottom