Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Jon Shafer, May 15, 2016.
Civ isn't EU and it shouldn't try to be.
Indeed, the direction of that game is to decrease strategy over the last few patches, to say nothing of the "patch feature out and sell better version in DLC". Firaxis has never taken gameplay away with patches that I'm aware of in any of its civ titles. I can list over half a dozen ways EU alone has done it in the past year.
Where EU and those mods share falling flat is agency. To many of the players in strategy games, the engagement comes from making choices that have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the game. Even within the constraints of RNG, you still can tip the scales and influence the general direction.
EU's a good example of times the RNG goes right and poorly, because it contains examples of both. Take the combat dice there for example. While you can get hosed by a few bad rolls, it would take inordinately terrible luck to lose wars simply because you rolled poorly; being forced to expose yourself to that risk would be for desperate situations only. Between tech, idea group investment, unit composition, and amount you invest into units you don't have *total control* of combat, but still greatly influence the outcome.
Then you have nonsense mechanics that are broken by design. The flagship of that is (regency council) and those being unable to declare war. One of the more important skills in that game is properly reading your diplomatic situation and engaging in wars as opportune. But despite having no real historical basis, regency councils block you from declaring war. Here is a list of things you can do to prevent regency councils with any consistency:
There's nothing you can do. You can have +200% heir chance, heaps of marriages, doesn't matter. Your heir gets event-killed and you have no counter-play, just get stuck sitting there for 15 years. Get a bit unlucky and 10% of your game or more is spent that way.
The monarch point design for monarchies is similarly poor/lacking in agency, but not as egregious if you're western. There the main problem is that these are a *crucial resource*, but for most of the game over half your income in them is completely random. It's like building a farm and often getting less food than if you didn't build one and just worked an unimproved tile, but in that game the real problem comes in when you have literally stretched your points to the max, because at that point your only option that's viable is literally to wait. Having to wait at random due to RNG is not good design.
So I don't want to see that in Civ, which generally does not violate player agency. Rebellions and empire turnover don't make sense at the time scale the game abstracts, and implementing them without meaningful player agency would do nothing but add noise to diminish the importance of player choices. A different game environment where your empire shatters if you mismanage it or get too aggressive could make sense, but that *if* is very important, otherwise you're losing the "gameplay" in your game...
Moderator Action: This was a bit off topic for the Screenshot Analysis thread so it has been moved into its own thread.
Rather off topic but I was wondering, Mr Shafer, if you will make final frontier 2.
Enjoyed the first mod in civ 4 bts, can't wait to see an upgrade!
Separate names with a comma.