1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Future Update - Speculation Thread

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by bite, Mar 24, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    9,384
    Location:
    France
    I disagree, AI started to be programmed to act as player with 5 and 6, yes, but there was 4 iterations before for which this wasn't a core design.

    And that's why I still think civ4 was better (for my taste), the AI there wasn't trying to be something they can't be.

    I don't see it happening, but maybe a diplomacy oriented expansion may offer a return to less PvP oriented interactions, with an AI slider going from "RP" to "competitive" to please everyone...
     
    Civinator, j51, Elhoim and 1 other person like this.
  2. MAHRana

    MAHRana Prince

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    316
    Actually that would be interesting. The game doesn’t really simulate the way the vast majority of civilizations didn’t stand the test of time. In this game any civ can pretty easily cruise to the end game whereas in the past plagues, internal warfare, natural disasters, new institutions, individual relations and Marriages, etc. could make or break a civ every now and again.
     
    Jkchart, j51 and Neirai like this.
  3. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,789
    Right, let's say you can control or mitigate. Then you should've done so, even if that means less growth early. Do whichever thing results in the most growth overall. You should never have allowed your Civ to wane, if that is what is less overall growth. Just don't cause the waning.

    So the alternative is to not have control over it, and make you adapt to it. But as a strategy game, many players will be frustrated by this. They have to *expect* that the game is *about* alternately waxing and waning, and then adapting to the situation you're in, so that they won't be frustrated.

    What elements did Civ4 have that caused your empire to wane? The random events? People said those were immensely frustrating, for this exact reason. If there was some sort of rubber-band mechanic or slingshot effect that caused you to become weaker if you grew too strong, then optimal gameplay would've been to just not get too strong in the first place...unless the rubber-band was so weak that the snowball was still worth it. And then I wouldn't call that waning...just lessened waxing.
     
  4. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    I found the events in IV exciting not frustrating. To suggest a player has to have total control or a total lack of control over random events is a false dilemma.
     
  5. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,789
    That is also not what I said. If you have any amount of control at all, you should have used that control to not have the waning happen, or to make it happen less.

    I am not saying you have total control or a total lack of control, I am saying that you either have *enough* control or you do not. If you have enough control, you should have used it, not gotten into this situation with enough waning to result in negative snowball. If you do not, then people will feel that they are at the whims of fate in what is supposedly a strategy game.

    I also liked the events. I wish Civ were a game that actually was designed around the rise *and fall* of empires, but it isn't, because it is a race game. It is inherently only designed around growth, because it is a race game. I wish it were not a race game.
     
  6. DefiantMars

    DefiantMars King

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    605
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    Civ6 in particular is made much like a board game, not a simulator or grand strategy game, so I don’t know how far you can push the idea in Civ6. especially after all the effort they’ve tried to put into the current victory conditions. In my opinion, implementing the kind of system you’re asking for is something you want to be deliberate with. I don’t think empires dying in the middle of the game and another one emerging out of nowhere is something the current design of Civ6 can handle reasonably. Maybe if Rise and Fall didn’t happen or if were done differently?

    At best, I think Dark Ages and Golden Ages Could probably be expanded upon to convey more of that idea if expansion and contraction. But I do think there is space to push Ages, Loyalty, and Amenities.
     
  7. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    May feels like a long way away, but also entirely plausible.

    If FXS are spreading out the actual Civs across multiple DLC then I could see shorter marketing period, but really who knows. Terra Incognita.
     
  8. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,789
    Sorry, I don't necessarily mean that the empire completely goes away and a fresh one is created anew. That is definitely a different game, since you would have to be playing as something other than the empire itself. Maybe a dynasty, or the people and their society itself.

    I'm saying even making Civ into a game that allows setbacks to be real setbacks (not like the Age system, where a Dark Age is useful to slingshot to a Heroic Age) would require the victory conditions of the game to be changed.
     
  9. JungleTreetops

    JungleTreetops Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2020
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    UESC Marathon
    I wonder if we're going to get a culture system like Civ 5, and move the civics tree to a new currency like Philosophy, with a new culture victory type. Now this, I don't know what to do for, because the culture victory is already pretty well set in. Maybe use the culture system as a mechanic that augments tourism (like having a highly developed culture [maybe based upon some sort of level or tier system] could multiply your tourism bonus, and culture could be used as a local religion-like bonus [but have a lot more impact?]), and also have more tourism aimed towards cities? I hope the implementation won't just be a copy of Civ 5's culture but I think the game needs to be less linear and have more strategies than: build more city or build less city but make city really big. But then again, you can't do that, because Civ as a whole is based on cities. You control territory from cities. You harvest resources through cities. You conscript and draft your armies through cities. I'd have no idea how to change this. Decentralizing Civ from city to hex is practically changing Civ into Grand Strategy with 4X elements, or a really long time-span of EU4. I wouldn't actually mind that, because my suggestions are based on EU4 mechanics. But things like cities make for linear strategies, and the strategy is based upon the game's implementation. But having things like Culture or Military Doctrine would really allow for more strategic elements, because you'd have to adapt to other players' choices. Also, peace deals (deals in general actually) also need some reworking, I think. Maybe show the world when you are demanding cities, so that you know what you are getting? Instead of demanding cities that you see the most pop and resources in? Again, EU4 used a pop-up menu instead of a full-screen menu so you could see what you were demanding, it's resources and development, and how many problems you'd have if you demanded it all. With religion (because religion isn't something I bother in Civ with, AT ALL, but it was incredibly important in history), the amount of faith should affect your stability in cities. Do you care for your country's devout? If you don't, or even support another country of another religion, perhaps they will rebel? Are there other untolerated religions in recently conquered lands that might cause uprisings, or could you attempt to bring the marginalized into your religion? But again this might have to change the fundamentals of Civ.

    That being said, the AI would also have to adapt to that.

    Rise and Fall and it's mechanics didn't really prove it's namesake. Dark ages don't tend to happen to you unless you gained too much era score in previous eras, or you have crippling loyalty and over-extention issues (also loyalty). Era score and the timeline never really shows a good timeline. Why doesn't it take score away when you lose a war (which will never happen, unless you really had loyalty problems, barbarians or a spawn of just tundra / snow and no hills for 10 tiles)? Era score is meant to show your prosperity but also happens to represent things I'd deem insignificant but apparently is enough to be stated on a timeline meant to represent your entire civilization. It should show the foundings of cities (more than just in specific areas where they were settled), when you declare friendships, when you are declared war on, and it's conclusion. Maybe there needs to be more mechanics to fill in this hole but then I would think I'm asking too much. R&F was a step in the right direction but didn't have enough to satisfy another step. Maybe, once your empire is "waning" you could reform your empire into a newer and stronger empire; like Timurids into the Mughals, or Ming - Qing (not exactly), England - Great Britain? I don't think it should be a cosmetic change or anything, just that your country reformed and consolidated, and you gain a small bonus + got rid of any negative effects that not modernizing created.
     
  10. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    It wouldn’t be that hard to bring back Ideological Pressure in a Third Expansion.

    You’d just have Cities with one type of Government receive negative loyalty and or negative happiness from Cities with a different Government type, based on relative Tourism. For these purposes, T3 and T4 Governments could be grouped along Liberal, Collectivist and Fascist dimensions (eg Democracy and Digital Democracy, Communism and Synthetic Technocracy), with Tier 4 Governments exerting additional pressure.

    FXS could the leverage additional mechanics on top of that, e.g specific Policy Cards, Wonders, Great People, new Districts / Gov Plaza Buildings. I’ve pushed this a few times I know, but we might also get more Governors that maybe unlock via mid or late game Civics that impact ideological pressure / loyalty /happiness etc.

    Basically, I think adding more mechanics based around Ideological Pressure is Low hanging fruit for FXS. It’s all stuff that they’ve tried out in Civ V, which was generally liked in that game, and which could be easily introduced in Civ VI via existing mechanics.

    I also think it would be fairly easy for FXS to do more around Trade / Commerce and Vassals / Colonial Cities, just given how modular Districts are and existing mechanics like Continents, Governors etc. (I mean, good grief, don’t “Governors” just scream “Colonialism”?). I don’t have as strong views about what FXS could do, but they could definitely do something. Vassals / Colonial Cities seem like a particularly easy and handy thing FXS could add, particularly given the focus the game has in expansion / wide play.

    Sigh. I really hope we get some word on a 3XP soon. Seems like a lot of potential. Be good to know if that potential is going to get realised or not.
     
    JungleTreetops likes this.
  11. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    956
    Location:
    Warsaw
    It is not false dilemma. It's a core design decision if you want to push the game towards the Ameritrash style game (generalizing -> you can win or lose because of RNG), or euro game (generalizing -> RNG is used to make a game less repeatable, and must always be played around). Generally, Civilization is not the game, where RNG can ruin you and I don't want it to be changed.
    As for events, it depends on what you mean by the event. It can be a very good idea if they were like "Do X. If you succeed than Y if you don't than Z; or choose A then a choose B than b, choose C than c". It can be a terrible idea if they are like "Meteor strike, destroy 3 titles".
     
  12. L4Psha

    L4Psha Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    I always thought that it's absolutely logical. It would be strange if some power tries to dominate the world in some way and everyone will be okay with that. And civ not the only game with this feature. Maybe the weakest place is scientific victory. Now it's very hard almost impossible to stop AI 'peacefully' from it, if it's on the way. Because now he builds spaceports in every city. And i struggle to find a logical explanation to go aggressive. Gameplaywise it's logical but from realistical point of view not so much. Because spaceship directly isn't a threat to you. Thinking this way USA maybe already won in 1969, or USSR in 1961 or even 1957. But they didn't start a war to stop their moon mission or sputnik launch.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2020
  13. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    9,384
    Location:
    France
    "everyone" would not be okay with that, but all their allies would, if they can share the benefit. And the others would think to team up, yes, to compete on that field.

    and that's exactly what's missing in the game, grouped (ie more than 2 players) alliances (military, economic, even scientific, think European Space Agency for your example), and shared victories.
     
  14. JungleTreetops

    JungleTreetops Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2020
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    UESC Marathon
    Maybe we should have war not as a one on one but rather in groups, of which other civs can join and intervene by joining that specific conflict [that is not just another, one on one war]? But that is kinda like the emergencies which in my opinion happen not often enough or to the defender of someone being attacked, except it's all also one on one.
     
  15. Casworon

    Casworon Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    509
    Not sure i would agree entirely with this. Allied nations definitely spy on each other in real life and are in competition in many areas.

    The game already has the world games and other such globally shared projects which represent global co-operation. I would also love to see an expansion of this. But also i like how the game represents the cut-throat competition even allied nations engage with each other in
     
  16. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    9,384
    Location:
    France
    That why I specified "that field", you could share a military alliance but be competitor in two different economic alliances.

    edit: and I don't see why you couldn't use spies against "allies".
     
    Zaarin and RohirrimElf like this.
  17. AsH2

    AsH2 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    Sweden
    Ain't that bugged atm? (An allied spy are visible in your towns.)
    Hopefully that will be fixed SoonTM..
     
    Jeppetto likes this.
  18. Loderingo

    Loderingo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    179
    I agree that you should be able to spy on your ally. What annoys me is the lack of consequences. There should be the option for one side of an alliance to cancel it for bad behaviour on the other side. At the moment you can sabotage your ally’s dam or spaceport and they will still renew the alliance. Likewise your ally can attack your city state and you can’t do anything about it.
     
  19. OmegaDestroyer

    OmegaDestroyer King

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    678
    Gender:
    Male
    Agred 100%. I think you should be allowed to betray an alliance as well, with a 200 diplomacy cost, 400 grievances added, and -10 diplomatic favor for 10 turns or so.
     
  20. Gyrofalcon

    Gyrofalcon Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    184
    Why can't human player Demand political agreements? "I demand CIV A to stop aggression towards CIV B or Citystate C or myself" or "I demand CIV A to stop trading with CIV D" or "I demand stop spreading Religion Z to my cities"?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page