Do you typically play with Crises on or off?

[disjointaccount]

Just the title, really. Curious as to how people are approaching this. I tend towards a fairly sim city playstyle where I like to just build nice cities (and maybe do a little bit of conquest), and upon first trying VII, I found the crises to just be annoying more than anything else. Realised turning them off was an option and haven't looked back since, to the point where I forget they're in the game half the time and get surprised when I hear them mentioned. Totally see what the devs were going for; they're just not for me. Just wondering if I'm in the total minority or if this is a common sentiment.

 

[Nikolai II]

I play with them on, but would like to be able to choose between the crises when setting up the game.

 

[Siptah]

I tried without crises, but the late-era gameplay feels a bit stale to me then. Sure, I can manage to get more legacy paths completed and level up the leaders quicker. But if there‘s nothing to increase the urgency of the late-era (I need to unlock the tier 3 unit to fight off the barbarians, I need to focus on getting x before the plague hits and I can‘t finish it), many decisions feel pointless because they will be undone soon by the reset.

 

[EpicWestern]

I play with them on just to add some difficulty but I don't really enjoy them. There needs to be some major crisis rebalancing. The happiness crisis where you can lose cities in antiquity can be incredibly frustrating and game breaking, while other crises are just not a big deal at all - sometimes you get some tiles pillaged.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm very surprised by the numbers playing with crises on! I have found crises either do next to nothing or really hurt the AI with very little in between and almost no effect on the player. I try turning them on once in a while and each time I just find I dislike what they do to the game... If they were not optional then my thumbs up on steam might even have gone to a thumbs down...

Maybe some of it is down to playstyle. I tend to make quite compact empires in 7 so barbarians and loyalty are minor annoyances usually, plague can be more impactful but usually it's in a very random way that's more of an irritant than anything else... In exploration the legacy paths ascend so fast the crises rarely last more than 5-10 turns.

 

[CliffCo]

Always off as i hate the plague. I recently created a feedback request on the official discord asking for them to make the plague optional without disabling the other crisis, or to make each individual crisis optional, many people liked the idea.

 

[sixty4half]

I play both ways but its probably 60/40 off, so I voted crisis off.

I had heard that crisis tends to hurt the AI more than the player. I don't know if that's true or not though. So when I play a Sovereign game I leave them off as I already have advantages at that level. On my current Diety game I have them on.

 

[bigjim1]

Left them on for the first few games, then switched them off. I got bored. First: they're too random (should be some connection between the state of the game and the kind of crisis, but I can't see one). And (ironically): they're too predictable - you always know exactly when they're going to hit, and they always intensify.

I'd prefer to see crises arising at any point, depending on the state of the game: e.g. too may big cities makes plague more likely, etc. Also chance to fix the problem (build hospitals, etc); if you act quickly, crisis should fizzle out.

 

[disjointaccount]

Left them on for the first few games, then switched them off. I got bored. First: they're too random (should be some connection between the state of the game and the kind of crisis, but I can't see one). And (ironically): they're too predictable - you always know exactly when they're going to hit, and they always intensify.

I'd prefer to see crises arising at any point, depending on the state of the game: e.g. too may big cities makes plague more likely, etc. Also chance to fix the problem (build hospitals, etc); if you act quickly, crisis should fizzle out.

Yeah, this is sort of how I feel. My issues with crises are definitely issues with crises in their current state, rather than with crises as a concept. I'm sure with some tweaking and iterating they could be turned into something that I'd be more interested in.

That said, I don't think it's a priority or anything. There's plenty of other things I'd rather be focused on in terms of what gets added/changed. Having the freedom to disable them so players can choose what they feel works best for them is a perfectly fine solution in the meantime, imo.

 

[Sagax]

Tried crises on for the first few games (and I keep them on if I accidentally forget to disable them), but I mainly keep them off, for 2 main reasons:

1. Not enough variety - I think we have 3 versions of the crisis per era, and from my anecdotal experience, most of the time I just end up with the loyalty-related one. This adds to the feel of repetitiveness in the game that already feels railroady and lacking in variety. After your first experience with the crises, there is nothing sudden or emergency-inducing about them in your subsequent playthroughs, and they just feel like an annoyance that adds nothing meaningful to the game.
2. AI cannot handle them. People say that the crises are another way to keep a runaway player in check, but in reality the crippled AIs handle them so much worse. With crises turned off, it still feels like you are competing against other players to squeeze out the remaining bits of legacy points, while with crises on it's like everyone is suddenly taking a break to deal with the whack-a-mole in their own yard - with your neighbors failing spectacularly at it.

I think the crisis system if one of the issues in this game that will be tricky for them to tackle. Those who embrace the crisis mechanic often don't find it punishing enough, while those who hate it already want it gone at the current challenge level. I guess the option to disable the crisis is already the way to handle this divide, but I wonder if FXS will look into their telemetry data years down the line and learn the right lessons from it...

 

[Yzman]

On. I rarely see a point in turning off something with the base game.

 

[disjointaccount]

Kinda surprised to see a fairly even split between on/off. Not sure why but I'd expected it was gonna swing relatively heavily one way or the other.

 

[reddishrecue]

I play with crisis on because it provides a challenge for all not just myself and I feel like if I turned it off it would be too easy Peezy.

 

[Methos]

My first game I played with crisis off and liked it, so I've never bothered to try playing with it on. At this point I'm not sure if I ever will.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

I hate plague but at the same time it makes sense.
Everything else is good.

Love the barbarian - independent people swarm in the 1st age

 

[Chefofrats]

I have always disliked scripted, negative events in strategy games - I don't play to see my civilization in crisis and its people suffering. Also, I like to relax and have fun, rather than be stressed and challenged (well, duh) - which is why I typically play on Sovereign, despite having easily won on Immortal and Deity.

I tried turning crises on once or twice, but even though I handled them just fine I found them to be annoying, and they only detracted from my gaming experience.

I can't imagine myself turning them on ever again, and if I were forced to endure them, I'd probably quit the game.

 

[Tuvok694]

Took me about five games after release to realize that this feature in its current state is nothing but annoying. So I turned it off and I am certainly not switching it on again until it is completely re-worked (which might take some years, considering they are still working on basic things like auto-explore or steam workshop).

 

[protocol7]

Definitely off, my civ is already scripted to be doomed to die offscreen and have another civ move into their ruins, no need to rub salt in the wound with a crisis I have no control over and even if it doesn’t effect me at all and I handle it perfectly the same outcome is preordained.

 

[MutilationWave]

I hate plague but at the same time it makes sense.
Everything else is good.

Love the barbarian - independent people swarm in the 1st age

Do you have any insight into how you play that may cause you to get the barbarian or plague crisis? I know how you play affects it, because I am always over civ limit and always get both happiness crises.

 

[Buckets]

I would like to see the crisis be optional not at game setup, but at the end of the age similar to the one more turn feature. It could be a risk to play through it but give you a chance to get some wars or builds done. If so, I think it could be much harsher with an easy out retiring to the next age if you want.