[GS] Disable GDR

[Disgustipated]

When I was young and playing Civ 2 in my goal was to get to tanks and capture all the cities

I did that with howitzers that ignored city walls. I usually left 1 ai city then blasted off to alpha centauri.

 

[SaiH]

I'm not a fan of the GDR and also kind of disappointed that they chose to go this way for the future era. However, I could live with it if they balance it out. From what we know from the livestream the GDR seems too strong – 130 base stregth vs. 107 for a Modern Armor Army. The other thing is that in the shown state of the tech tree you can beeline to Robotics with GDR and skip Mechanized Infantry, Modern Armor, Rocket Artillery and all other Information Era units comletely.

 

[Gedemon]

Really? So, as pgm123 suggests. a Gun-deployment rig jumping over mountain ranges does not bother you at all...?

Everything is relative, in the long list of things that bother me in civ6, the GDR abilities and naming would be near the end.

 

[racha]

I don't mind the GDR itself (whose inner child doesn't love huge robots with big guns?), but I'm really looking forward to seeing what modders can do by applying the unit's upgrades mechanic to other things.

 

[Larsenex]

I am so happy they added the GDR! Finally a future era unit which we can mod into Xcom or any other unit!

I love GDR. It just became one of the unseen for my game > Marauder!

 

[Pistol90]

Well probably some mod will arrive to delete this unit then ... let us hope it will also bring some replacement , just make attack drones, some high-tech destroyes, ArmorFightingVehicle, Rockets and it would be enough.

But one more thing we all forget is decision to even go for only military units in Future era , this is really really cheap design. War is almost gone from human society and in future it will probably be thing of the past (what we see today are mostly civil wars in part of the world which still didnt catch up with modern society - or antiterorist actions , not real-big wars) and they gone in future era with this. There are so many possibilities with future era in Civ6: AI which will give you bonuses across all fields, space exploration which will give you new forms of transportation etc,etc,etc ... and FX put only one thing in future era _ GIANT DEATH ROBOT. Like thats all future will bring

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Well probably some mod will arrive to delete this unit then ... let us hope it will also bring some replacement , just make attack drones, some high-tech destroyes, ArmorFightingVehicle, Rockets and it would be enough.

But one more thing we all forget is decision to even go for only military units in Future era , this is really really cheap design. War is almost gone from human society and in future it will probably be thing of the past (what we see today are mostly civil wars in part of the world which still didnt catch up with modern society - or antiterorist actions , not real-big wars) and they gone in future era with this. There are so many possibilities with future era in Civ6: AI which will give you bonuses across all fields, space exploration which will give you new forms of transportation etc,etc,etc ... and FX put only one thing in future era _ GIANT DEATH ROBOT. Like thats all future will bring

I'm afraid to disagree. Nowhere it's said that the only thing added in the future era is the GDR. It's just the only thinkg they reveal. But, for example, in the Sweden livestream, they said that some future civics/techs would give you one or two diplomatic victory points... Even if it's not that great, it shows that future era is more than the GDR.

You assume they revealed all. IMO I think they're keeping a lot of small future features secrets to let us discover some things.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Culturally? Not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are flat out stronger than others. Too many to count have died out or are in a museum currently. Some not even that. The loose collection of culture we call Western Civilization (Roman, Greek, and a handful of others) appears to be almost completely defacto, it certainly is dominant. No matter how big or strong Chinese culture is, they are not exactly good at spreading it's concepts or encouraging it's adoption anywhere. They may not be interested for all we know. They certainly have enough of their own to resist a great deal of Western culture.....for now at least.....

The reason why Religion and Culture is not an issue for immersion is because it already exists and there are historical cases of it happening even if it was not 100% adopted in the Earth.

I don't deny that some cultures are stronger than others, especially in the measure of civ terms. I do deny that any actual historical culture has stayed the same over the timescales in civ, such that making one temporarily monolithic would constitute something like a "game-ending victory". German culture now vs 1000 years ago is incredibly different. USA hasn't even existed long enough for that and even so 2019 culture vs 1830 culture barely resemble each other.

For game purposes this might make sense. What doesn't make sense is rejecting GDR "because it's unrealistic" while not rejecting "culture victory". Such a position is self-inconsistent.

Victory conditions in general are mechanics that allow a player to win or lose the game. The specific victory conditions are themselves abstractions that represent mankind's cultural, scientific, religious, and military achievements. A 4x game with a historical flavoring would feel incomplete if it didn't reflect mankind's desire to build, create, discover, and destroy.

It's so abstracted that the concept of "winning" doesn't translate to any real outcome. Even purely in the context of the game Firaxis can't manage the balance, and has always left non-military victories as pseudo-VCs (requiring either forgoing military win to win another way arbitrarily, or for your opponents to throw so you can win despite being militarily weaker).

GDR "immersion breaking" can't touch the fact that most AI nations don't even pursue these supposed victory conditions with any urgency, and particularly not to block them.

 

[ChocolateShake]

For game purposes this might make sense. What doesn't make sense is rejecting GDR "because it's unrealistic" while not rejecting "culture victory". Such a position is self-inconsistent.

I'd say the reason why the GDR sticks out a lot more than any other element is because it isn't rooted in any historical basis - it breaks with the theme completely, for reasons of fun. Cultural victory isn't any more unrealistic than the other victories I feel. The difference between the GDR and cultural victory I think is that it sticks with the historical theme.

I'll enjoy using them sure, but I can see why they'd be immersion-breaking - following Civ's historical theme would be looking at the near future and seeing what could theoretically be possible within say the next 50-100 years. Of course there is a chance we'll be seeing gigantic death robots jumping over mountains in that timeframe, but I kind of doubt it

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd say the reason why the GDR sticks out a lot more than any other element is because it isn't rooted in any historical basis - it breaks with the theme completely

That's my point. Making this argument about GDR while being okay with many things already in Civ 6 is necessarily/objectively incoherent. In addition to the fact that we're about to get weather damage to armies on 40+ year timescales, Civ 6 has:

• Degenerate incentives between victory conditions and diplomacy, leaders acting inconsistently with incentives (only true crazies did so historically, though history had different incentives)
  
• Ludicrous travel times when compared with actual history
• One unit per tile (by scale, entire modern military forces could fit on a tile or two)
• Space race (nobody can make a legit case that colonizing another planet has basis in history, considering our current progress towards a Mars colony).
• City walls matching siege in range despite the entire reason for using it in history
• "Victory conditions" at all are debatable as having basis in real history

Of course there is a chance we'll be seeing gigantic death robots jumping over mountains in that timeframe, but I kind of doubt it

I doubt it too, but long-term viable Mars colony and someone winning a "victory" I'd peg as less likely still.

 

[ChocolateShake]

That's my point. Making this argument about GDR while being okay with many things already in Civ 6 is necessarily/objectively incoherent.

Yup in terms of actual realism, I agree with your point that civ hasn't really ever been realistic due to the things you listed.

What's really at the heart of opposition to the GDR I think is its disconnect from the historical theme of civ. The future era will always be a bit tricky for civ I think, and it's understandable that the devs prefer a giant robot - it's exciting and fun, I've enjoyed using it in civ 5. But there will be times when it feels a bit too out of place.

 

[Archon_Wing]

• Ludicrous travel times when compared with actual history

• One unit per tile (by scale, entire modern military forces could fit on a tile or two)

Lol someone funny how 1upt gets praised as some work of genius and "realistic" but it is in fact really stupid in concept. (Archers to machine guns "do u even lift bro")

But I have to agree with you on the incoherent thing, as I pretty much see nearly every immersion argument in any game as such. I'm pretty sure nuclear Gandhi isn't historically accurate either.

Civ is a game that is loosely based on humanity, basically. With immortal leaders can telepathically communicate. You really think I wouldn't have barred Gorgo from my throne room the 5th time she asks why I'm not at war?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What's really at the heart of opposition to the GDR I think is its disconnect from the historical theme of civ.

That's a fair criticism, if applied consistently.

They don't bother me in particular, but as I already mentioned it's not exactly a new or exciting piece of sci-fi even if you ignore all other considerations, so I wouldn't care if the game drops them either. The game also appears to have too many VCs to balance rather than too few, so I'd rather see score pressure matter than a "science victory" that implies tech our own history has yet to attain.

When it comes to sci-fi implementations in a game like this, I would prefer to see things that are actually in line with physics as we understand them, and yes a GDR isn't practical in military terms. Not compared to aircraft, long range missiles, or tanks. It's a silly choice, but it's also silly to uniquely single it out as immersion-breaking on the basis that it isn't realistic.

But I have to agree with you on the incoherent thing, as I pretty much see nearly every immersion argument in any game as such.

Immersion *can* be coherent, as long as the person defining it is self-consistent. In principle a person could even find asinine things immersive, like adding Pdox Swedish Christmas carols to Civ 6 full time just because they like them. As long as they don't proceed to hate on another game because it uses Swedish Christmas carols, that's a self-consistent preference, albeit perhaps not a cultured one .

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's my point. Making this argument about GDR while being okay with many things already in Civ 6 is necessarily/objectively incoherent. In addition to the fact that we're about to get weather damage to armies on 40+ year timescales, Civ 6 has:

• Degenerate incentives between victory conditions and diplomacy, leaders acting inconsistently with incentives (only true crazies did so historically, though history had different incentives)
  
• Ludicrous travel times when compared with actual history
• One unit per tile (by scale, entire modern military forces could fit on a tile or two)
• Space race (nobody can make a legit case that colonizing another planet has basis in history, considering our current progress towards a Mars colony).
• City walls matching siege in range despite the entire reason for using it in history
• "Victory conditions" at all are debatable as having basis in real history

I doubt it too, but long-term viable Mars colony and someone winning a "victory" I'd peg as less likely still.

Yeah, nobody wins real life.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Immersion *can* be coherent, as long as the person defining it is self-consistent. In principle a person could even find asinine things immersive, like adding Pdox Swedish Christmas carols to Civ 6 full time just because they like them. As long as they don't proceed to hate on another game because it uses Swedish Christmas carols, that's a self-consistent preference, albeit perhaps not a cultured one

Guess that works too. It does show how subjective it can be, and how hard it is to really fit these things in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't really know how to put it past "I really don't care!" especially when it is followed by a poor understanding of game mechanics.

 

[Aristos]

Those strategic bombers are not even stealth at all, yet the tech on the tree says Stealth Technology....

Of course they are! Have you ever seen an AI Strat Bomber?

See? Stealth.

 

[Socrates99]

I'm not a fan of the GDR and also kind of disappointed that they chose to go this way for the future era. However, I could live with it if they balance it out. From what we know from the livestream the GDR seems too strong – 130 base stregth vs. 107 for a Modern Armor Army. The other thing is that in the shown state of the tech tree you can beeline to Robotics with GDR and skip Mechanized Infantry, Modern Armor, Rocket Artillery and all other Information Era units comletely.

I think the point is that the only counter for a GDR is another GDR. Still, str deficits are something every player on a higher difficulty overcomes. It's just going to take numbers and bonuses stacked as best as possible. They even said in the live stream that they wanted it to be strong but still vulnerable to regular units.

 

[Victoria]

Some like it hot, some not.
To me the game destroying robot is about ending the game, I personally thing seeker drones would be a more realistic option as they are nearby but it matters not as I get bored at about T250 with RSI in my wrists from all that clickin.

 

[PKLarson]

I have no problem with a robotic gun rig, we are already working towards that. The problem is the GIANT. Anything larger than it's surroundings draws attention to itself. Just as the use of all caps in my second sentence demonstrates. The history of armored warfare teaches us that low profile enhances survival on the battlefield (as long as crew efficiency is not hampered). The idea that there will be 60 foot walking robots on the battlefield someday is totally ridiculous. (Robotics will allow us to create tanks with a lower profile than is possible with a manned tank!)

It would have been much better if the robotic gun rig was a tank upgrade, because that it what it will be in the future. Infantry will have powered armored suits in the future and my add 3-6 inches to an infantryman's height, but this will be a far cry from a giant robot. The book Starship Troopers gives a better idea of what future warfare will look like than Star Wars or the Transformers.

 

[Victoria]

Robotics will allow us to create tanks with a lower profile than is possible with a manned tank

EMP rockets will counter that.
Bottom line is weaponry nowadays is so insanely expensive that few countries can afford to be competitive. Those that do cannot really afford a prolonged war. Million dollar munitions are just crazy but here.
GDR is clearly along the lolz lines of other traditions in civ.

My fave example of OP weapons is in the “Closure” chapter of “Look to Windward”, an intelligent flying nano robot swarm that include nuke nano’s and ones that breach the enemies electronics to take them over. I guess nothing compared to a “GCU” in the books but mighty scary.