[R&F] Do you still like R&F?

[Lord Lakely]

I like playing it, but i also play for fun, not for be *good* at Civ 6.

 

[Arent11]

The safest way to infer intention is to look at actions. In Civ 6:

• chopping woods was boosted: whereas in past versions of civ, this gave a base yield, in Civ 6, it gives escalating yields as the game progresses
• resources can be chopped for the first time, giving additional yields besides just production (food, gold, faith with a pantheon)
• a pantheon was created that only provides benefits when chopping, suggesting that it was expected that people would chop
• a governor was added to the first expansion to boost the benefits of chopping compared to the base game

All of the above suggest, to me, that the development team planned for chopping to be a big part of the game. Possibly with the intent, all along, to then introduce climate change once they had trained players to rely on chops as a key source of production.

I actually see no serious effect of climate change. Just avoid those low land tiers and my chop will only cause the sea to flood AI cities, which helps my victory.

Huh? Chopping results in climate change? That means as Norway I don't have to wait until industrialization to flood the earth? With enough chopping I can do that in 2000 BC?

 

[pgm123]

I’m not saying I chop (although I do) or that you should chop (maybe you do or maybe you don’t).

I’m saying the game is designed and balanced around players generally doing a lot of chopping. Is anyone actually disputing that?

Doesn’t mean people have to like it. Doesn’t mean people have to do it. Doesn’t mean it’s “the right way to play” - play however you want. But the game is designed and balanced for chop, chop, chop.

I agree that chopping is a core part of the game. But it was like that in vanilla too. If moving Magnus around to optimize him reduces your enjoyment, then just don't do that. You can chop without Magnus. Nothing says you have to play optimally.

 

[Siptah]

Huh? Chopping results in climate change? That means as Norway I don't have to wait until industrialization to flood the earth? With enough chopping I can do that in 2000 BC?

I think chopping creates droughts in your land as most important consequence. Planting trees reduces CO2 levels, but I haven‘t heard about chopping creating CO2.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think chopping creates droughts in your land as most important consequence. Planting trees reduces CO2 levels, but I haven‘t heard about chopping creating CO2.

Forests absorb CO2. So they act as a buffer that prevents CO2 generation from directly impacting the atmosphere. Less forest = more CO2 impact.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I never disliked R&F. I still think the Loyalty mechanic was a great addition. The only thing I don't care for are emergencies and those will be fixed with GS.

 

[Siptah]

Forests absorb CO2. So they act as a buffer that prevents CO2 generation from directly impacting the atmosphere. Less forest = more CO2 impact.

Yes, I understand it‘s working that way. But I don‘t think chopping in pre-industrial era will make CO2 levels rise by itself. This was the premise to which I answered.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Better than vanilla with loyalty system and new civs/wonders.

And yes Magnus Meta is cancer. Governors were lackluster

 

[JimGrumpypants]

Love it.
Can't wait for GS.

Is it perfect? No.
But neither were vanilla, V, IV, or III, and I loved them.
It is just another step toward continuous improvement. Every step has been just a little bit more interesting and a little bit more fun.

I only micromanage as much as I feel like in a given game. (I mean, I could pen and paper all of the exact values and work out exactly every optimal move, but blah!)
Some of the features work great, some are meh, but overall R&F has been the best tool yet to get hours of fun gameplay out of.

 

[Furycrab]

I got it late and on sale, it definitely feels better than Vanilla. The Governors are a little bit on the tedious side, swapping around Magnus early game for chopping doesn't feel right. The Era stuff is pretty cool. Loyalty is a game changer.

 

[Leathaface]

I prefer R&F a lot more to vanilla, but I wouldn't say it's fantastic. I think the AI is really holding it back.

 

[Arent11]

I think chopping creates droughts in your land as most important consequence. Planting trees reduces CO2 levels, but I haven‘t heard about chopping creating CO2.

Forests absorb CO2. So they act as a buffer that prevents CO2 generation from directly impacting the atmosphere. Less forest = more CO2 impact.

Ah, so that's how it works. So I still have to wait to industrialization to flood the planet *sigh*

 

[Disgustipated]

Switzerland consists to large parts of regions and cities that „flipped“. Even in the 20th century, an Austrian Region wanted to join (and had a vote about it that said yes), but Switzerland and Austria denied. The Italian province of Lombardy still has a movement that wants to join. Similarly, Alto Adige has a political movement to join Austria. So it is still happening today on older and more recent borders. Secession movements are even more common.

But this is not due to "pressure" of nearby cities. If we were talking about the loyalty mechanism & pressure of nearby cities, Switzerland would have long ago been absorbed by the EU. In the real world, things work very different.

The point it that this mechanism is superfluous & was better implemented by cultural pressure in civ IV. The only effect it has is that you can't conquer a city in the middle of the enemy civ - and it frustrates newbies that can't yet judge which cities they should raze and which they should keep. The effect is simply so unimportant that it doesn't justify the introduction of a new mechanic & it also doesn't justify frustrating casual players.

well Civ4 wasn't perfect either. Back to the Switzerland example, Switzerland isn't potentially gaining cities because of high culture. I would argue Italy has much higher culture (in Civ terms) than Switzerland. Switzerland is coveted because they are a pretty awesome place to live, have a good economy, don't suffer from corruption and crippling debt Italy suffers from. I would live there if I could. The situation is too complex to be modeled in civ terms. Neither population pressure or culture correctly models people wanting to "flip". I actually think unhappiness would be the biggest factor in reality. Unhappiness in the loyalty mechanism is an issue in Civ6, but far less than population pressure. I would rather see negative amenities and low gold production (this should be a loyalty mechanic) have a higher impact than population.

As for the complaints about governors above, I actually like the governors. It's one of the better features for me. Though I did hope they would be more permanent fixtures in cities. I do move Magnus around, but only for major chop operations. 1 or 2 chops here or there I don't bother moving Magnus and just go ahead and chop it. My only complaint is having to tie up useful governors for loyalty issues.

My breakdown of grades for Rise and Fall:
Golden Age system: B
Governors: B
Loyalty: C-
Free Cities: D+
Alliances: A-
Emergencies: C
New Wonders: C+
New Units (non uu) C
New Civilizations: A+

As you can see, the new civs are the highlight of this expansion. Some really fun ones to play. I especially love Scotland. My fastest Science victories have been with them, yes they are faster than Korea for me. I love how they really kick in to high gear when you get all your cities ecstatic. Cree are awesome as well. Mongols and Zulu are solid warmonger civs, both are fun in their own way. Netherlands are pretty awesome as well, and I've had some very fast science victories with them as well, I believe they are 3rd behind Scotland and Korea for me. Chandra was a necessary addition to help India have some early offensive power, and fix the Gandhi problem. Mapuche are a bit weak, but can be interesting. Georgia is... well Georgia. LOL.

 

[Arent11]

well Civ4 wasn't perfect either. Back to the Switzerland example, Switzerland isn't potentially gaining cities because of high culture. I would argue Italy has much higher culture (in Civ terms) than Switzerland. Switzerland is coveted because they are a pretty awesome place to live, have a good economy, don't suffer from corruption and crippling debt Italy suffers from. I would live there if I could. The situation is too complex to be modeled in civ terms. Neither population pressure or culture correctly models people wanting to "flip". I actually think unhappiness would be the biggest factor in reality. Unhappiness in the loyalty mechanism is an issue in Civ6, but far less than population pressure. I would rather see negative amenities and low gold production (this should be a loyalty mechanic) have a higher impact than population.

Yes, the real world situation is much more complex. You would have to take into account both the life circumstances & possible other "attractions" due to culture, religion or ideology.

I viewed "culture" in civ4 as a kind of "propaganda" similar to faith for religion. You basically convince people that your civ is awesome which does not necessarily mean that it is actually awesome.

 

[Sagax]

It's.....ok. Definitely better than Vanilla, but I don't think that's the main point of discussion. Overall, I am content with the new features, but I am also left with a bitter aftertaste about the way they were implemented.

I am fine with the general idea behind the Loyalty system, and how it should prevent annoying forward-settling. But I can't agree with the way they assigned the "weights" for all the factors that contribute to it. IMO, the centerpiece of this should have been Amenities (aka "happiness") - and everything else should stem from it. Population pressure, that most important factor as of now? Tie it to amenities, something like "X times the city amenities per citizen" - instead of just to the sheer fact that there is some foreign population hanging out next to your colony. As of now, some flips just feel illogical, no matter if you manage to sustain loyalty or not. The US went for independence because they were not happy with the actions of the Brits - not because Native Americans were emanating oh so much pressure on them. Neither did Hong Kong or Macau flip back to the most populated empire at that time. I still wonder why they didn't just improve on the Ideology Pressure mechanics that they had in Civ 5 BNW. More specifically, the Revolutionary Wave - it was simple, made sense, and definitely had potential for being refined and adapted for Civ 6 as Loyalty.

The Age system feels...gamey? My main concern is the fact that there is this arbitrary deadline by which EVERY civ must be evaluated and declared a winner or loser. Why must every civ enter their respective ages simultaneously? Why is this the race, out of all things in this game?

The underlying numbers are still out of whack, and R&F might have made it worse with Magnus. There are two complaints going on: a) Tech speed is too fast, we have the tech to colonize Mars in the Industrial era; and b) Production costs ramp too fast, it takes forever to build anything (conclusion - chop the hell out of your land). There have been number tweaks to address both, and yet things still feel off.... Fixing this will be a huge undertaking, though - game balance is not that easy when you look at it from under the hood of your engine. Bat maybe just reduce chopping yields, for starters?

In the end, I feel like there needs to be a major cleanup patch (or expansion?), where someone sits down, do some painful number-crunching, and revise the underlying numbers. The math behind this game so often feels shaky, and building new expansions on top of such foundation will only result in more questions.

 

[Sostratus]

I'm not really pleased with R&F.
Governors - probably my biggest problem with R&F. Their bonuses are too specialized and either you invest too much micromanagement into moving everyone around all the time, or you just pasivelly place them somewhere and you may get some bonus or not. Things like "faster production of theatre square buildings" are a great example of this. I always have the bad feeling that I realy shouldn't chop until I move Magnus, make a builder until I move Liang etc. I know you don't have to play optimally, but why care about governors at all, then?
Eras - seemed like a good idea, but in fact I stopped caring about it after few games. The ages (golden, normal, dark) and almost the same, the bonuses are very similar and feel too random to me (or they really are?). Heroic age - have had only 1 so far (because it's very hard to get a dark age). Dark age - not really so bad, maybe even better than normal, which doesn't make sense. But I still try to avoid it, because the dark color hurts my eyes. Yea, great gameplay motivation!
Emergencies - too random, too weird. And always an easy bonus for the human player, nothing else.
Loyalty - good concept, but plays an unimportant role in my games. I wouldn't probably notice if it suddenly disappeared. I'm not kidding.

I think you captured the big 4 areas well. I have a different take - governors I like as a concept although I agree the implementation is sometimes a little too specific in a game where every city with a campus and Uni gives essentially the same science, etc. I wish they were all sort of like magnus if you ignore the chopping: he can transform how you do settlers, he can create a domestic trade route hub, and he can make a city the industrial powerhouse. More "area" effects please! 7 governors for unlimited cities is only so good. I also have a love hate with the "bonus if city has governor" mechanics some governments have. It just feels like it's a good mechanic but out of place at the government level (not the policy card level though.)

I really like eras, but more on a mechanical side because it gives a great measuring stick to control game pacing with. Like I think the system is a good meta-mechanic for other mechanics to play off of. Golden/dark ages are so-so, mostly its too easy to get golden ages with how era score is balanced.

I always saw emergencies as a stepping stone to the world congress.

Loyalty only matters unless it doesn't. They could do an expansion's worth of work to perfect the loyalty system. If you settle or conquer organically it doesn't come into play much- which i think is the point. Although it hamstring overseas colonies too much.

I really like alliances, but i feel that whenever I play esp on harder difficulties, no one will be my friend...

I guess knowing there would be a second expansion has given me a very different perspective.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Huh? Chopping results in climate change? That means as Norway I don't have to wait until industrialization to flood the earth? With enough chopping I can do that in 2000 BC?

Forests absorb CO2. So they act as a buffer that prevents CO2 generation from directly impacting the atmosphere. Less forest = more CO2 impact.

Yes, I understand it‘s working that way. But I don‘t think chopping in pre-industrial era will make CO2 levels rise by itself. This was the premise to which I answered.

I may have misunderstood. I thought each chop added to CO2 levels, but based on the subsequent responses it seems this was wrong.

 

[Sostratus]

I may have misunderstood. I thought each chop added to CO2 levels, but based on the subsequent responses it seems this was wrong.

In the stream they pulled up the climate stream, saying the world was "lightly deforested" and that meant -20% co2 change. I'm guessing the virgin map would be even better at buffering and MagnusLand will be a more rapid rise. I htink there were 4-5 levels of it. But it counted woods, jungles, and marshes.

 

[BTSeven7]

I may have misunderstood. I thought each chop added to CO2 levels, but based on the subsequent responses it seems this was wrong.

So this means conservation will be more important. Chop and plant those trees in time to save the earth.

Civ6 was designed to be all about map interaction and chopping makes sense. Chopping is powerful but it’s not infinite. It can be tedious for maximization and I do wish there was other ways to generate some extra production.

I think a buff to IZs and some trade offs for cutting everything down outside of Teddy complaining would help things feel more balanced.

 

[acluewithout]

In the stream they pulled up the climate stream, saying the world was "lightly deforested" and that meant -20% co2 change. I'm guessing the virgin map would be even better at buffering and MagnusLand will be a more rapid rise. I htink there were 4-5 levels of it. But it counted woods, jungles, and marshes.

My. That is interesting.

Could we be about to enter a brave new world where chopping has genuine trade offs?

Well. I mean, trade offs for those of us not finishing the game on turn 88 using one relic, 3 Knights and 492 Campuses?