Disable CS and huts

[Aheadatime]

It's not "for no reason", it's to reward, and thus encourage, early exploration.

You have an interesting definition of no reason. The reason is because a civilization explored.

Exploration is required regardless. You need to discover your surroundings literally every game. You explore to meet neighbors, find expand locations, meet CS (not for first-to-meet, but to map out which are in the game/which you want to invest in), understand terrain layout, strategic resources, kill barbs, etc. Giving people the equivalent of a free civic policy or a free monument for getting lucky while doing so isn't reasonable to me.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

There is not difference between disabling CS/camps and different map types. Naval units value is very dependent on which map type you play on. No game will be fair to all civs.

 

[Mort_Q]

I'm okay with goodie huts being on a toggle. The CS first meet bonus seems a little too specific to bother.... not that I'd care if they did.

 

[beorn]

Hey, people have their own tastes. But I sure won't turn off city states. Not only do they look to be much more interesting this time around, but they are a part of the game where the AI can probably compete pretty well -- and the bonuses they give look significant. So disabling them may make the AI easier to beat.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well if you ignore the CS you can actually make the game harder.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

Exploration is required regardless. You need to discover your surroundings literally every game. You explore to meet neighbors, find expand locations, meet CS (not for first-to-meet, but to map out which are in the game/which you want to invest in), understand terrain layout, strategic resources, kill barbs, etc. Giving people the equivalent of a free civic policy or a free monument for getting lucky while doing so isn't reasonable to me.

While I do understand where are you coming from when you want to eliminate luck factor, I don't think this is the most important thing. You just can't avoid having starting location (unless you want to disable Civ 6 ), and luck factor involved there is much bigger imo. So I really don't see much sense in disabling CS or goody huts.

 

[rschissler]

With the extra bonuses that the AI gets, doesn't early exploration, CS's, goody huts, favor the AI even more?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Players tend to know how to put the bonuses to use while the ai do not know how to use them.

 

[LDiCesare]

I really hated CS in Civ 5 and disabled them. The game was almost unplayable imo, because everything was thought with having CS around.
I thinkCiv VI looks much the same, although the bonuses from city-states look less gamey than in 5. Lots of diplomacy is supposed to go through city-states(which I do'nt thinkis a good idea), so disabling them may make the game worse even ifone doesn't like the CS.
So, I'd not disable city-states at the beginning, just to see how the game is designed, then disable them to see how it works without them.
As for goody huts, I like them, as they give a risk/reward to exploration.

 

[rschissler]

Players tend to know how to put the bonuses to use while the ai do not know how to use them.

I was referring to difficulty level bonuses.

 

[Haggbart]

No. I'll be sure to play the default game first before passing judgement. There are certain stuff I'm worried about in term of pacing and game balance, but goodie huts and CSs messing up the gameplay real bad aren't big worries of mine.

Although I think some of the CS bonuses should be nerfed.

 

[mnf]

With how important early exploration is in Civ VI, I won't be turning off goodie huts. They're like the occasional small gift you come across and I actually like them. I also definitely want to see how the new city-state diplomacy work out for me. I have played games without city-states in Civ V and the games are very different, but in the end they're different because the game was not balanced around not having city-states.

So at least for now I don't see myself turning off either in the foreseeable future.

 

[King Jason]

Exploration is required regardless. You need to discover your surroundings literally every game. You explore to meet neighbors, find expand locations, meet CS (not for first-to-meet, but to map out which are in the game/which you want to invest in), understand terrain layout, strategic resources, kill barbs, etc. Giving people the equivalent of a free civic policy or a free monument for getting lucky while doing so isn't reasonable to me.

That doesn't change the fact that you can do it at different speeds. You can explore early, or late, you can explore fast, or slow.

You are rewarded for exploring early and fast - you are not rewarded for "no reason".

That's like saying people who beeline a specific wonder tech and then are able to beat the other civs to their construction got those wonders for "no reason". The reason is that they took specific action to get there first. No one starts with a scout in civ6 and you never have to build one. The movement rules in this game make exploring a lot slower than previous games so you can either make exploration a priority or you can not.

If you don't, you're very likely going to lose out on most goody-huts and all of the CS bonuses.

Consider this; You having 1 envoy with a Industrial CS gives you +2 production in the capital. Eventually, every other opponent has the potential to get that, and all of the other bonuses aside from the competition for suzerainty. So by removing this one city-state from the game you, as the player, are losing +2 production (just focusing on this first bonus right now) and yet you're pulling a potential 14 production across the entire world out of the game (standard 8 civs).

If this were civ5 and the bonuses were very specific to the person that controls the city-states, I may agree with you. But the fact that the bulk of the worth of CS is achievable by any civ regardless of suzerainty - I call fowl on the balance implications of removing them from the game. Going back to the industrial CS, the total net worth of +2 production to cap and +4 production to all industrial districts is available to anyone with 6 envoys.

To say nothing of the fact that there's more than 1 city-state in game.

You're cheating your opponents by leaving them out.

 

[Mustakrakish]

CS seem to be more interesting this time around but I'm worried about how their bonuses are earned. People keep talking about "investing", but so far I haven't seen any actual need to "invest" apart from simple quests which you would do or wouldn't mind doing anyway. "Oh you want me to trigger an eureka for that tech? Yes please, I wouldn't mind that, thank you for reminding me!" You seem to be earning envoys just by playing. I've seen a couple of times already how a player had around 7 envoys to push down the CS throat when they finally found one. I don't like that. 7 envoys just by playing, while never even being in contact with one or bothering with anything related to CS. Insta-suzerein, just like that. At least make some need to actually invest, then this "investing" people are talking about would make sense. Some buildings, wonders perhaps that only generate envoy points and provide no other benefit for you, so if you want to earn those envoys some other way besides via quests, you'd need to ACTUALLY "invest".

- "There's a mod for V called CS dip..."
- "YES yes, I know all about that, thank you very much."

 

[King Jason]

I think the concept of "investing" is due to the need to make choices on which CS to focus on. Currently we can't judge the A.I. performance appropriately due to important variables such as difficulty level, among other things, skewing things. But I would wager that competition for suzerainty will be much fiercer on higher difficulties which will lead to deciding whether to spread envoys around to gain multiple bonuses various types, ignoring suzerain status, or be more conservative with your envoy usage so that you can enforce suzerainty over the few states that are important to you.

That said, I'd agree that the incredibly passive nature of the envoy system is a bit of a shame. I'd hope/expect it to be expanded upon and revamped in a future expansion. My initial thought is via a new diplomatic buildings - perhaps even a district that focuses specifically on foreign relations. Embassies could become a building themselves. This could extend itself to diplomacy with the a.i. preventing certain actions such as delegations from being received unless they construct an embassy. etc.

Plus, ever since the induction of great people I've been looking forward to the idea of Great Diplomats.

 

[gunnergoz]

I personally like more in the game and not less, so no, I'll keep CS and GH in the game.

 

[Furycrab]

Disabling CS I feel is a bit silly in 6, envoys are an integral part to the game and even entire governments.

Just as an aside, most goodyhuts give eureka/inspiration moments... but if you are planning reasonably well your current tech path, you should be getting them anyways. It will give you options to perhaps rearrange things and it favors exploration, but it shouldn't shave significant amount of turns off your tech path unless you weren't planning very well.

 

[Aheadatime]

That doesn't change the fact that you can do it at different speeds. You can explore early, or late, you can explore fast, or slow...

...No one starts with a scout in civ6 and you never have to build one. The movement rules in this game make exploring a lot slower than previous games so you can either make exploration a priority or you can not.

No you can't. You must explore early. Exploration is largely fueled by expansion. Wait a while on a competent difficulty level, and you'll have AI cities at your door. You also won't be able to tell where the barb hordes are coming from (which arrive early) without scouting early, and you'll be missing out on goody huts. This 'choice' is illusory, exploring early is the only logical choice.

You are rewarded for exploring early and fast - you are not rewarded for "no reason".

No, you're rewarded for no reason. 99% of players will build scout first, period. The AI will be given a free scout on higher difficulty levels, and from the LPs, they seem to rush a scout on lower difficulty levels. So when everybody first-builds a scout in roughly the same time frame (maybe a turn faster or slower depending on if you moved your settler etc), you are being 'rewarded' for absolutely no reason. The scout that you built at the same time as everyone else just so happened to stumble upon more first-envoys due to random chance. There was no skill or foresight in bumping into these things in the fog of war or having more flat terrain around you than the next guy.

That's like saying people who beeline a specific wonder tech and then are able to beat the other civs to their construction got those wonders for "no reason". The reason is that they took specific action to get there first.

No it's not like saying that at all. You had to have foresight to beeline the tech. No foresight is required to bump into CS first.

Consider this; You having 1 envoy with a Industrial CS gives you +2 production in the capital. Eventually, every other opponent has the potential to get that, and all of the other bonuses aside from the competition for suzerainty. So by removing this one city-state from the game you, as the player, are losing +2 production (just focusing on this first bonus right now) and yet you're pulling a potential 14 production across the entire world out of the game (standard 8 civs).

Notice you used the term 'eventually'. My argument isn't that CS bonuses are unbalanced. My argument is that getting a free envoy for meeting them first as opposed to a small chunk of gold is unbalanced. +2 production or +2 culture is insanely strong 10 turns into the game. That's a free monument or an extra population point working a hill. It's also representative of # of turns shaved off of future policies/units/buildings now that you have that bonus culture/production, making it snowbally. Other players have to invest in that culture or production, but one guy gets it for no reason.

If this were civ5 and the bonuses were very specific to the person that controls the city-states, I may agree with you. But the fact that the bulk of the worth of CS is achievable by any civ regardless of suzerainty - I call fowl on the balance implications of removing them from the game. Going back to the industrial CS, the total net worth of +2 production to cap and +4 production to all industrial districts is available to anyone with 6 envoys.

Again, not talking about CS and their bonuses being unbalanced. Strictly talking about first-to-meet free envoy.

 

[Big J Money]

Do we know if we can disable CS? Anyway they look too fun to disable, but I agree the "first finder" bonus is very sporadic and random; possibly unfair.

I might actually disable goodie huts for the first time. With the changes to Barbarians, movement and hut distance I actually feel like they might be bad for the game. In Civ V, everyone was guaranteed to get a couple or few if you focused on scouting. I've seen games now where people scouted and didn't find any.

 

[Ravellion]

I think that the first to meet free envoy is balanced out somewhat by that first diplomatic policy that gives 2 envoys for the first one sent. Sure, someone who scouted got a quick boost, but others can catch up and there should be some rewards for scouting, especially as I find the goody huts a bit lacklustre compared to previous iterations of civ. Except for the free relic; that seems horribly broken.