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

[acluewithout]

I think the games problems are deeper than the AI.

Core problems include:

1. Your opponents all start at the same time as you. This is the source of the whole snowball problem. Can you imagine any other game where you’re opponents basically never got more powerful. This is, more or less, how the game currently works absent some isolated Civ running away with the game. The game would be much more interesting if you started with some Civs already ahead of you and established (ie you’re the new guy on the block), and then later you had new Civs, some behind you (like you were) and some that rapidly expand (like America).

2. You’re never required to actually manage your empire. Your only threats are external.

3. You can’t lose, absent losing all your cities or someone else which is fairly extreme. So, you’re never under pressure, you can always grind out a victory, and you never get any feedback on how well or not you’re playing.

RnF basically fixed none of these issues. Even loyalty and Eras don’t create any empire management.

The game is designed like Monopoly. Once you’re established, there’s no one that can stop you.

OMG this is the third time I’ve mentioned Monopoly on this forum. Unbelievable.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I like the idea of the Ages system per se. I don‘t like three things of the implementations:

• normal and golden ages are too easy to achieve. It‘s a really rare to get a dark age, except if you do it on purpose.
• How the era score is accumulated feels often „gamey“ and unreasonable to me. Why not fix the in-game score and assign golden ages according to this already implemented and far more universal score? You could add another sub-pool for things like historical moments to the score.
• There‘s a strange feeling when I get a dark or golden age for what has already happened in the era before. This can easily lead to golden ages that aren‘t that golden and dark ages in which a civ thrives. I don‘t know how to solve this though. EU4 has a better system for golden ages, but it wouldn‘t work in civ with its shorter eras, and one does not need to copy stuff all the time.

These are all valid criticisms but to me the game still feels better for the inclusion of Ages, Vanilla feels a bit sterile in comparison. I find each of my games does have a unique 'story' now and this is largely down to Ages I think.

 

[TomKQT]

These are all valid criticisms but to me the game still feels better for the inclusion of Ages, Vanilla feels a bit sterile in comparison. I find each of my games does have a unique 'story' now and this is largely down to Ages I think.

Ages add a bit of variability, that's true. I however don't personally agree with the enthusiastic reactions of Firafix people in the streams about the history line (the new feature of R&F) - I never really looked into it, never found it interesting even a little bit

And my another problem with eras (added to what I already wrote here earlier) - the dedications are a bit underwhelming. Especially in dark/normal age - they are ALL just about how to gain era score for the next age. Ehm, really? So you work hard to avoid a dark age and your reward is that you can choose a bonus that will allow you to get a little bit more era points in the next age? The system works mostly for itself, just like if for example the only reason of governors was to make it easier to get other governors

 

[mitsho]

Because I play Civ on one computer, work on another while watching videos/lectures on another.
I can finish a game in 4 days. Or give and up and award the AI's a win.

I haven't been bored since I was 5 years old. If the game bored me I would stop.

Turn times at the end of the game can be around 2 minutes.

If you can't remember what you were doing in the game because of long interruptions and give up, or it causes you to lose, then chalk up a win for the AIs: you simply were not up to the task.
Or that type of game does not suit you, the time you have available, or many other reasons. In that case, bad luck! Try another game that suits you better instead of battling with a dog.

Wow, your tone is incredibly condescending. Intentionally?

I just play the game differently than you (and frankly I can‘t see many people playing while working). I do enjoy the game, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here. But I am a casual player and that is okay. I set up my games very specific to my needs and always play on online speed when not going for conquest.

And btw. I don‘t keep count, I play for fun and distraction

Btw., it‘s a hassle to get back into a game because the game will ask you a string of very detailed questions. It does not ask you empire-level questions, so imho the game doesn‘t manage the transition from the city orientation of the early game to the empire one of the late game. It would be a different game, but there might be some path in the middle to take.

Ages add a bit of variability, that's true. I however don't personally agree with the enthusiastic reactions of Firafix people in the streams about the history line (the new feature of R&F) - I never really looked into it, never found it interesting even a little bit

And my another problem with eras (added to what I already wrote here earlier) - the dedications are a bit underwhelming. Especially in dark/normal age - they are ALL just about how to gain era score for the next age. Ehm, really? So you work hard to avoid a dark age and your reward is that you can choose a bonus that will allow you to get a little bit more era points in the next age? The system works mostly for itself, just like if for example the only reason of governors was to make it easier to get other governors

The history line doesn‘t work since it contains too much trivial info. A barb camp cleared or a city on a foreign continent nets you many points, but is it really that historical? They are also the same from game to game, so there‘s a deterioriation in return. I‘d rather have a thinner history line as well, but that‘s minor. The more interesting to me is that the dedications almost never fit. I‘m not going to build as many districts versus popping eurekas. They are also not adaptive. Great I get points towards a great prophet but all of those have been popped already? It‘s the little things.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Ages add a bit of variability, that's true. I however don't personally agree with the enthusiastic reactions of Firafix people in the streams about the history line (the new feature of R&F) - I never really looked into it, never found it interesting even a little bit

And my another problem with eras (added to what I already wrote here earlier) - the dedications are a bit underwhelming. Especially in dark/normal age - they are ALL just about how to gain era score for the next age. Ehm, really? So you work hard to avoid a dark age and your reward is that you can choose a bonus that will allow you to get a little bit more era points in the next age? The system works mostly for itself, just like if for example the only reason of governors was to make it easier to get other governors

I like the timeline but it would be improved by adding non era score events so it becomes a true timeline of your Civ rather than just a history of your era score.

Agree about most of the dedications but there are a couple of good ones, I like the one that gives you a special casus belli which allows you to crush a pesky neighbor for minimal Diplo penalty.

 

[TomKQT]

Agree about most of the dedications but there are a couple of good ones, I like the one that gives you a special casus belli which allows you to crush a pesky neighbor for minimal Diplo penalty.

Yes, but those dedications giving some real bonuses (not just era points) are only in golden ages.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It broke immersion too much. My people shouldn't be revolting cos we conquered another city, for most of the game. They'd be revolting if I lost too many cities - that makes sense. Yet that way they get happier!?

If conquest causes your empire to revolt it's because you didn't invest enough to get ready to conquer. You need to win the peace in Civ 5, not just the war, i.e. you have to have a plan going into the war about how you'll keep your empire together after you win. You can't just invest in having a bigger military and call it a day. I understand that game play may not be for everyone, but for me, Civ 5 was the most satisfying Civ game to play conquest with, simply because it took more than beating up the AI in the field to plot and plan for global conquest.

Also, losing cities to revolt should not make your remaining cities happier. Every city has the potential to build the happiness generating buildings required to more than support the happiness of it's own population. The only time you need to plan ahead is when getting ready to place a new city, so that you can support the happiness of that new city until it can produce it's own internal happiness.

It's not difficult to run a sizeable happiness "surplus" in Civ 5, and if you do, you can then grow, settle, and conquer to your heart's desire. But you have to make the happiness of your empire a key priority. Unlike in Civ 6, where the happiness system is so tangential to the overall gameplay, it need hardly be there at all.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yes, but those dedications giving some real bonuses (not just era points) are only in golden ages.

Sure, the normal age dedications don't provide a bonus but I'm ok with that. They could definitely be more interesting but I definitely prefer Civ VI with its current ages system than Civ VI without it!

 

[Jewelrunna]

The main issue I have with R&F is the loyalty system. It was a good idea—both nerfing forward settling and opening up a new method for expansion. However, the problem is that it makes domination a complete and utter chore to play—even more so than it was before. It greatly slows down the pace of a domination game to a drag, having to recapture conquered cities that flip. It’s an idea that’s going to need to be revised in order to make that type of victory fun.

Everything else is fine; eras are a good idea, so are governors (albeit with there being poor balance between them). Emergencies are also a good idea, but they feel sort of inconsequential. The main disappointment I have with R&F is that it doesn’t fix any of the main problems with vanilla Civ VI—namely being the awkward unit progression and tech tree, and the bad production scaling. It just tacks on new features, some of which add new problems.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes, lots. I've got an old post of mine I've dug up and will paste in here with some examples.

When Persia was growing in the pre-Greek/Persian wars the border nations would have cities flip back and forth as influence waxed and waned. Areas would be conquered or subjugated, then flip right back out and have to be re-conquered or flip back once Persian influence was established.

The first Greco-Persian War saw Greek influence cause revolts...

some good points here. I guess my main problem is seeing the AI play the loyalty system so badly. Sometimes they have a pretty strong empire, but one dark age really does them in. I kind of feel sorry for the AI. LOL. Of course not sorry enough to conquer the free city and give it back to the AI. If the AI could play better, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue. The AI still settles in terrible places.

 

[nzcamel]

The history line doesn‘t work since it contains too much trivial info. A barb camp cleared or a city on a foreign continent nets you many points, but is it really that historical? They are also the same from game to game, so there‘s a deterioriation in return. I‘d rather have a thinner history line as well, but that‘s minor. The more interesting to me is that the dedications almost never fit. I‘m not going to build as many districts versus popping eurekas. They are also not adaptive. Great I get points towards a great prophet but all of those have been popped already? It‘s the little things.

Yeah, agree that the timeline isn't what it could have been.
One change that would make it more interesting I think would be that if it contained two timelines. Your own, and below that all the other Civ's in terms of major achievements like when a Wonder is built. Once you met a new Civ it could backfill some of that info.

If conquest causes your empire to revolt it's because you didn't invest enough to get ready to conquer. You need to win the peace in Civ 5, not just the war, i.e. you have to have a plan going into the war about how you'll keep your empire together after you win. You can't just invest in having a bigger military and call it a day. I understand that game play may not be for everyone, but for me, Civ 5 was the most satisfying Civ game to play conquest with, simply because it took more than beating up the AI in the field to plot and plan for global conquest.

Also, losing cities to revolt should not make your remaining cities happier. Every city has the potential to build the happiness generating buildings required to more than support the happiness of it's own population. The only time you need to plan ahead is when getting ready to place a new city, so that you can support the happiness of that new city until it can produce it's own internal happiness.

It's not difficult to run a sizeable happiness "surplus" in Civ 5, and if you do, you can then grow, settle, and conquer to your heart's desire. But you have to make the happiness of your empire a key priority. Unlike in Civ 6, where the happiness system is so tangential to the overall gameplay, it need hardly be there at all.

My issue isn't that Global happiness put restraints on empire building or conquest. Were it so, I would not like Civ IV or VI's systems either. My issue is that it do so in such a clunky heavy handed way that had no bearing on reality at all - that is was daft.

The things you have said play into my game style. I don't like building/conquoring cities willy nilly and just leaving them as a shell taking up space. I love building fine cities that are productive & happy etc; and so of all players I'm going to embrace changes that limit unrealistic growth.
This is why Civ IV's system was so brilliant - frontload the cost of building a city (representing infrastructure investment) so that it's a drag on your economy until you get it up and humming.

I don't mind happiness being a part of what limits expansion (it has been in IV, V, & VI); but it needs to be one part of an equation, not the sole determinant.

In V losing a city did make your other cities happier in too many situations. Ergo, plain silly.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't mind the loyalty system-in general-but I think it should also factor in elements like Religion & empire-level happiness. There should also be additional buildings that can be constructed to maintain loyalty in cities closer to a border.

 

[nzcamel]

I don't mind the loyalty system-in general-but I think it should also factor in elements like Religion & empire-level happiness. There should also be additional buildings that can be constructed to maintain loyalty in cities closer to a border.

They did update it to consider religion correct? At least in relation to Civ's that had founded one...?

 

[CultureManiac]

Its not so much that Magnus is OP, its that I spend too much time working out where to send him next, then getting very frustrated when I realise hes no longer needed where hes at and I forgot to move him.
He is micromanagement hell (and thats speaking as someone who never automated workers or used governors in past versions of Civ).

That's why I use the mod to move the governor in one turn. IIRC it's on steam, but I can't log in from this computer.

EDIT: It's Faster Governor Establishment
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1298426476&searchtext=faster+governor

 

[Reckoner]

This is why Civ IV's system was so brilliant - frontload the cost of building a city (representing infrastructure investment) so that it's a drag on your economy until you get it up and humming.

Thank you for articulating this concept so well. it's one of my favorite "tasks" within a game, Civ VI have several ways for doing it efficiently:
* Governors - Liang & Reyna help with districts. Liang, Magnus, Moksha & Pingala help with certain buildings.
* Trade Routes - I like keeping a trader dormant for a couple of turns just before I settle my new city, so it can start helping this new city right from the gate.
* "Hic Sunt Dracones" Golden Age dedication: Cities settled on a continent different than your Capital's gain +3 Population and +2 Loyalty per turn. Naval and Embarked units gain +2 Movement.

 

[TomKQT]

That's why I use the mod to move the governor in one turn. IIRC it's on steam, but I can't log in from this computer.

Which turns governors into a straight and easy bonus for everything you need, wherever you need, anytime you need :O (Except for the fact that you cannot have one governor in two cities at the same time.)

 

[Infixo]

Another thing I hate is the age system. The system is good, the problem is that it does not match with the real game progress.
When you research Cold War, you look around and say "hey, this is Medieval era." Why am I doing this?
Idealogy and cold war at Medieval era doesn't make any sense. The system is broken.

It is not broken, simply not balanced. Techs and civics are too cheap which is very easy to change. Plus the default turns for Eras should be a bit longer, by approx. 10-15 turns.

 

[PhilBowles]

My issue isn't that Global happiness put restraints on empire building or conquest. Were it so, I would not like Civ IV or VI's systems either. My issue is that it do so in such a clunky heavy handed way that had no bearing on reality at all - that is was daft.

Really, they screwed up by retaining the name of the public order mechanic from previous games - 'happiness' was always a pretty silly name, but it was particularly ill-suited for Civ V's take on representing public order.

Of course capturing cities makes public order go down - you're adding a bunch of unwilling citizens to your empire. If you imagined Civ IV happiness in aggregate, you'd have the same thing - new cities are full of unhappy newly-conquered people. Using an empire-wide management mechanic it makes obvious logical sense - but too many people couldn't get past the name or conflated the way global happiness worked with the way local happiness in older games worked (in which, for instance, military conquest could have the at best dubiously realistic consequence of making people in unrelated cities happy).

I don't mind happiness being a part of what limits expansion (it has been in IV, V, & VI); but it needs to be one part of an equation, not the sole determinant.

In BNW, early game expansion was constrained by the availability of trade routes and gold, given that everything had a maintenance costs, more than by happiness. In fact I think the final game would have been better if they'd treated global happiness as having past its sell-by date and simply replaced it with the economic constraint. The BNW approach is probably the closest the series has come to a 'realistic' constraint on expansion, and a city had to work a lot of tiles or build later-era commerce buildings to be self-sustaining.

 

[Ferocitus]

Wow, your tone is incredibly condescending. Intentionally?

Not relevant to the topic.

I just play the game differently than you (and frankly I can‘t see many people playing while working). I do enjoy the game, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here. But I am a casual player and that is okay. I set up my games very specific to my needs and always play on online speed when not going for conquest.

Not relevant to me or my answer. I don't care how, when or where you play.

And btw. I don‘t keep count, I play for fun and distraction

Good for you, I suppose! Our household doesn't keep assiduous counts either.
The topic is whether you personally like R&F. My favoured ways of playing have no bearing on your, or anyone else's, preferences.

 

[CultureManiac]

Which turns governors into a straight and easy bonus for everything you need, wherever you need, anytime you need :O (Except for the fact that you cannot have one governor in two cities at the same time.)

It certainly opens it up to abuse, but for me it just saves keeping a list of who to transfer where on which turn. Generally I keep governors in the optimal city for their abilities.