[R&F] Era Progression Speed

[Phoenix1595]

After watching the livestream and paying close attention to the details being released on the expansion, I have some concern that a major dilemma from Civ6's base game remains unresolved. I speak of the speed in which the game progresses through the eras. As of now, tech and civic progression moves so quickly that early eras pass by prematurely, not giving players time to fully "breathe" in the earlier stages of history. Even on Epic/Marathon, eras still go by too quickly and the increased production costs don't help matters (rather, tech/civic progression should be even more higher).

Some of us enjoy playing Ancient/Classical Eras, and are in no rush to progress to the next Era so quickly, but the game mechanics are such that science and culture accumulate faster than production and movement points, so one doesn't have the time to establish your civ AND fully experience the early game as you could in earlier Civ games.

I had hoped the livestream might address the issue, but they didn't seem to touch on the issue. Anton said the whole impetus of R&F was to modify the issues with mid- and late-game ennui by fleshing out the ages a bit more, but all I saw was adding more things to do (i.e. Build Government Plaza, balance loyalty and gain Era Points) in the same limited time window, or face a penalty (read: Dark Age). With the roll-out of the new Ages mechanics, will we still warp speed through the early ages?

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I think both Civ3 and 4 delivered really well in this regard. In these games I always really felt like fighting a survival game early on and the transition from under developed small CIV to an established Nation really felt rewarding. In 5 and 6 i get this feeling like I'm this instantly advanced Civ. In 5 this was much due to the city hitpoints and op shooting i guess, making med feel too strong too fast. In 6 i guess IT is as you Said, å problem with speed. I've tried playing on epic or maraton, but don't think those speeds go really well with 1upt.

 

[Kyro]

Unless tech and civics cost are at least doubled early on and tripled later on it is unlikely that era pace is going to slow down especially given the extra bonuses to various yields thanks to governors.

The hurried pace of the game is the result of Eurekas and Inspirations removing the importance of city planning and yield generation which inevitably makes it way too easy to progress quickly.

 

[Onii-chan]

Well as always there will be mods to increase tech/civic costs by X so it's fixable in that sense at least

 

[Olleus]

Well as always there will be mods to increase tech/civic costs by X so it's fixable in that sense at least

Exactly. Honestly, this type of balancing is one of things I'm the least worried about. Era progression will always be balanced for casual players who don't get their science/culture up quick. Civ4 was horrible in this regard too. But increasing culture/science cost is trivial for a modder to do (*ahem* 8 Ages of Pace *ahem*) and very modular, so it works with other mods too.

 

[Leyrann]

Unless tech and civics cost are at least doubled early on and tripled later on it is unlikely that era pace is going to slow down especially given the extra bonuses to various yields thanks to governors.

The hurried pace of the game is the result of Eurekas and Inspirations removing the importance of city planning and yield generation which inevitably makes it way too easy to progress quickly.

It's not that simple. Eureka's and Inspirations do not hurry the game up; failing to account for them when designing science/culture costs, tech interactions, tech numbers, etc does hurry the game up.

 

[trev1972]

Personally i think that for those wanting to breath in the early eras so to speak marathon speed should have been set differently (i think the science slow down is fine but the production slow down should have been far less)

 

[Phoenix1595]

Personally i think that for those wanting to breath in the early eras so to speak marathon speed should have been set differently (i think the science slow down is fine but the production slow down should have been far less)

It's production that is the big problem-- it should not be scaled as much as tech/civic progress.

As posters said above, it is a fairly easy programming fix. That said, it should be the game developers, not modders, who always make these tweaks. On this count, I disagree.

 

[trev1972]

It's production that is the big problem-- it should not be scaled as much as tech/civic progress.

As posters said above, it is a fairly easy programming fix. That said, it should be the game developers, not modders, who always make these tweaks. On this count, I disagree.

Yup to me it seems that the developers fundamentally did not understand why people play marathon.

 

[Karpius]

I would think such 'speed' adjustments would be an easy enough option to build into the gaming architecture. As some have pointed out, the real issue is the production costs. I think production costs should not change with tech/civ progression, which would allow players to spend more time building armies appropriate to the era of their liking.

That said, I would not like any adjustments that would remove the current progression on standard speed because that is exactly where I happen to like it. I am one of the rare individuals who prefers the late game.

The developers, however, are faced with a competing array of preferences from the Civ community. There are as many people who enjoy sprinting to victory as those who enjoy the long drawn out game. Some people can't wait to try out the latest UU, while others want to build the most perfect cities. The developers just need to find better ways of providing more options.

 

[UWHabs]

In 4 or 5, wasn't Marathon speed something like 3X the tech costs, but only 2X the production costs?

My biggest flaw in the game right now is that I feel that as you go through the ages, the build costs increase by more than you gain in new production. They're well balanced for the large cities in your empire - my top 3-4 cities are usually good at building new districts in a reasonable time as well as the buildings in them. For example, a university might take 10 or 12 turns to build, and when research labs come online, maybe they take 15-20 turns.

But the problem is that new cities don't get anywhere close to that. I know it's always just 3 chops away from getting that district, but if you're not chopping in districts, everything else doesn't scale. Basically, from the start to the end of the game, production costs increase roughly 10X, but tile yields only increase by about 2X (a mined hill goes from 3 cogs early to 5 cogs at the end of the game). So yeah, you get one mined hill and those late game monuments/granary finish very fast, but after the medieval period a city can't realistically slow-build a district unless if you chop or put a ton of effort into the city with trade routes/factories/etc...

I do hope that they flesh out the eras a little more, especially since each era will differ. It'll suck to get your first golden age and then realize that it only lasts for 10 turns, leading into a dark age that lasts 40 turns.

 

[trev1972]

In 4 or 5, wasn't Marathon speed something like 3X the tech costs, but only 2X the production costs?

My biggest flaw in the game right now is that I feel that as you go through the ages, the build costs increase by more than you gain in new production. They're well balanced for the large cities in your empire - my top 3-4 cities are usually good at building new districts in a reasonable time as well as the buildings in them. For example, a university might take 10 or 12 turns to build, and when research labs come online, maybe they take 15-20 turns.

But the problem is that new cities don't get anywhere close to that. I know it's always just 3 chops away from getting that district, but if you're not chopping in districts, everything else doesn't scale. Basically, from the start to the end of the game, production costs increase roughly 10X, but tile yields only increase by about 2X (a mined hill goes from 3 cogs early to 5 cogs at the end of the game). So yeah, you get one mined hill and those late game monuments/granary finish very fast, but after the medieval period a city can't realistically slow-build a district unless if you chop or put a ton of effort into the city with trade routes/factories/etc...

I do hope that they flesh out the eras a little more, especially since each era will differ. It'll suck to get your first golden age and then realize that it only lasts for 10 turns, leading into a dark age that lasts 40 turns.

I think it was discussed in another thread but i agree.

I was a sucker for TSL games, and as england in one of my first games was determined to colonize the new world and become a superpower empire

With the increasing costs however it didnt work out that way, late colonisation does have its place (luxuries) and i am aware that boosting can be done with chops/trade routes but generally even mid-game settled cities seem very disappointing. It all pushes you a bit to conquest too, since captured cities are developed

I also accept that people want different things, but a menu bar for 'tech speed' and 'production speed' wouldnt be a major thing id have thought.

 

[Karpius]

Basically, from the start to the end of the game, production costs increase roughly 10X, but tile yields only increase by about 2X (a mined hill goes from 3 cogs early to 5 cogs at the end of the game).

I can't be sure - only one of the developers could confirm or deny - but I believe that is tied into the year progression per turn. As the game advances through the eras, the game turns take fewer years. Perhaps this is reflected in how long it takes to build a unit?

If it took X number of 'years' to build something in the Ancient era when each turn took decades, but it took the same number of years to build a similar unit in the classical era when each turn equals roughly a decade, would that not equate to more turns to build?

If anyone could crunch the numbers on this I bet it would be @Victoria!

 

[Victoria]

If anyone could crunch the numbers on this I bet it would be @Victoria!

Nope, there are maths doctorates and masters here. It's just I am the poor fool that can be bothered.
However I hate the whole idea of years in this game because they just do not work well, and if they worked well the game would be quite restrictive. So I will not work on anything date wise.

 

[Karpius]

However I hate the whole idea of years in this game because they just do not work well, and if they worked well the game would be quite restrictive.

I would have to agree. I always thought the game should only count turns and leave the calendar out of it. The calendar seems to give some people the shakes when they see planes flying in the year 500A.D., or some such.

It only becomes more problematic when the years-per-turn changes through the course of the game.

 

[Benzombie]

I just wish they added in a bit more techs and civics, not as much as G&K did but something. From what I've seen you can skip the medieval era completely by going from shipbuilding to cartography. I've had that option many times especially as Norway. If they don't take care of that it can take a whole era out of the game, presumably screwing up the Rise and Fall mechanics more.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

We've only seen the transition from medieval to renaissance. It happened around 900 AD, which is still too early, but a lot better than in the bsae game where I get to the renaissance a thouasand years earlier.
I think eras being "global" will be a significant improvement and mitigate the escalating warmonger penalty issue somewhat. You can rush Education or Exploration, and you'll still be in the medieval era while the rest of the world is behind.
That's at least a step in the right direction.

 

[Victoria]

Global eras will give you less war weariness if you are ahead and more if you are behind.

 

[CPWimmer]

It's production that is the big problem-- it should not be scaled as much as tech/civic progress.

As posters said above, it is a fairly easy programming fix. That said, it should be the game developers, not modders, who always make these tweaks. On this count, I disagree.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the developers should always make these tweaks. They have made the game with a balance that they prefer. They may come back and make a tweak here and there, but if it doesn't meet with their view of the game they won't make that kind of change.

For whatever reason, they don't agree with your view of the tech/civic progression. They built it a certain way.

The problem the developers face is that there are too many competing desires from their MILLIONS of fans about this balance or that balance. The developers DID build a solution for this - the ability for others to modify the game to meet these many possible preferences that are different from their own.

I just can't understand complaining about something as "a major dilemma... [that] remains unresolved" and doesn't meet your view, but has a very specific and popular publicly available mod that fixes exactly what you are complaining about. The developers made the game modifiable so that someone like you who wants to play the game in just a slightly tweaked way can easily do so. With the developers full support and blessing.

 

[Guru-Meditation]

Well as always there will be mods to increase tech/civic costs by X so it's fixable in that sense at least

Yeah. Good thing that is true. I dont want to play without "Time-x2-All-in-One" (Doubles Civic/Research/GPP need) any more, regardless of speed setting. Much better balance between production, movement and civic/science progress.