Has Firaxis gotten more serious about balance?

[Ryika]

I find that balance makes games enjoyable and fun.

I'd say balance is what makes a game that has fun mechanics stay fun once the initial learning phase is overcome.

 

[Ornen]

I dunno, stuff like "get a second light cavalry unit for free every time you build one" is setting off alarm bells in my head, not to mention the policies. Something like:

Chivalry (Divine Right): +100% Production towards Medieval, Renaissance, and Industrial era heavy and light cavalry units.

looks WAY more use than:

Native Conquest (Exploration): Combat victories over units from earlier eras provide Gold equal to 50% of the Combat Strength of the defeated unit.

I mean, how often did you use cav in Civ5? Most of the time they were just an unnecessary byproduct of pikemen. Bonus to cavalry production would not be gamebreaking in Civ5, even a 2x bonus.

What I'd love to see with cavalry, while we're on it, is some ability to move through zones of control. So they would actually have a useful amount of mobility in combat. As it is, they're not mobile enough to be worth the big disadvantage in prolonged combat.

 

[Acken]

I mean, how often did you use cav in Civ5? Most of the time they were just an unnecessary byproduct of pikemen. Bonus to cavalry production would not be gamebreaking in Civ5, even a 2x bonus.

What I'd love to see with cavalry, while we're on it, is some ability to move through zones of control. So they would actually have a useful amount of mobility in combat. As it is, they're not mobile enough to be worth the big disadvantage in prolonged combat.

Did you forget scythia actually has horse archers ? And cavalry was a pretty decent unit in the industrial +. From what we've seen also ranged unit are rather weak. Making cavlry a good pick against it especially with the new movement rules.

 

[redwings1340]

Chivalry (Divine Right): +100% Production towards Medieval, Renaissance, and Industrial era heavy and light cavalry units.

looks WAY more use than:

Native Conquest (Exploration): Combat victories over units from earlier eras provide Gold equal to 50% of the Combat Strength of the defeated unit.

I dunno about that. Most of the time I'd probably get neither policy, but I could see times I'd want one or the other. If I were Sythia or a civ with strong cavalry units, I might almost always want to keep Chivalry as a policy card, but even if not, it might be useful if I had recently unlocked a new cavalry unit I want to produce in a war. However, Native conquest looks pretty useful too, especially if I have a barbarian problem (becomes an opportunity suddenly), or if I am at war with a civ that's behind in tech but ahead in civics (which might happen frequently in civ VI because of the way the culture tree works.

The biggest reason I'd use these, though, is the fact that they aren't permanent, so I'm ideally never wasting any policy slots by choosing things that are only useful for a part of the game. The civics tree is inherently a lot easier to give a chance to make meaningful decisions than the policy trees, because its much more reactive to your situation, and you don't need to have each policy in for all that long. You can even get both. Get chivalry for 10 turns, build up a huge cavalry army, and then switch it to native conquest once you go to war with that army. These policies synnergise quite well.

 

[thunderbird_14]

I'd say balance is what makes a game that has fun mechanics stay fun once the initial learning phase is overcome.

Agree. And it also helps the AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are 2 kinds of balance:

1. Balance between choices at game start. This means balance between starting civilization for strategic game, starting race/class for RPG, etc. This kind of balance makes sense for multiplayer only. For example, in Total War games different nations have different "difficulty" in their description - their start isn't equal and that's ok.

2. Balance between in-game strategies. That's more tricky thing. Overall if some mechanics could always be ignored, that's bad. If some strategy is always better than another one, it's bad thing too. But if some strategic option is situational and there are some rare conditions where it's better than alternatives, that's ok in terms of in-game balance. It adds to the range of decisions.

Overall Civ5 had quite weak in-game balance. Things like National College were too strong to not focus on them, etc. But the trick is - it's nearly impossible to balance all this before release. It's a work for patches and expansions to polish the strategic choices. Civ5 was hit badly not only by the weak initial management, but also by change in the team in process, so some core problems were never touched. I really hope Civ6 will be better.

 

[nzcamel]

Firaxis just has gotten more serious about proper game design, hence why Ed Beach is directing this game. Talking seriously, just going by the already revealed info about each civ you can tell that they are just better designed, more flavourful and more balanced than thair civ 5 counterparts.

Agreed. I'd say he's taking the design to a whole new level.

ROFL

This! ^^^^^^

Feels like they've been playing some tabletop games influences by Civ, like Thorugh the Ages and Nations. Especially with turning Great Persons into a drafting mini-game.

Wanna know where there's a ton of innovation is game design these days? Look to board games.

And Beach has experience with board games

No, what what bothers me is people that can only appreciate basic buffs and cry balance problems when they see mechanics that arent so straight forward I see you are stuck on the Barbarians. Farming low tech Civs does not count i assume, but that is ok. You say you are stuck with one or the other. You know you can switch policies. You can use Chivalry, build your army of Horseman and then switch into Native Conquest and farm for gold, that works doesn't it ? Even with one military slot. Not to mention if the Farm runs out, switch to a different policy

It is not that i can conceive of 1 way, i can conceive of many and you obviously haven't done many Honor Playthroughs if you believe Gold for Kills is somehow weak.

Gold for kills is great in V! Sometimes it's all that keeps me afloat lol

 

[nzcamel]

Define balance. Combat balance? Civ games will always be inherently disbalanced because warfare is a segment, not the goal, of resouce management. To have even a shot at balance, civ units should be coming from a source other than production.

I'm interested in what you say here, because -especially early in the game- I think like settlers and workers in IV, part of the cost of any unit could come from food or amenities. That seems relevant to me...

 

[Zaarin]

I dunno, stuff like "get a second light cavalry unit for free every time you build one" is setting off alarm bells in my head, not to mention the policies. Something like:

Chivalry (Divine Right): +100% Production towards Medieval, Renaissance, and Industrial era heavy and light cavalry units.

looks WAY more use than:

Native Conquest (Exploration): Combat victories over units from earlier eras provide Gold equal to 50% of the Combat Strength of the defeated unit.

Depends on your play style. As a near pacifist, a civic that gives me gold for killing barbarians sounds far more valuable than a civic that increases my production of units.

 

[Ryika]

Well, if my playstyle is to stay small and wait until I'm being conquered, then a civic that gives me -100% production and -90% military strength may be far more valuable than any other Civic.

"Playstyles" should not be part of a discussion about balance. Balance should always be based on an as objective as possible point of view from players who are willing to give up their "personal style" in favor of playing the best possible strategies.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There should be different optimal strategies, fitting different playstyles. If the only effective strategy is to conquer all neighbours, that would be bad for Civ game.

 

[Ryika]

There should be different optimal strategies, fitting different playstyles.

Yes, that's the end-result of a balance process that focuses on objective measures.

A balance-process that is lead by "My playstyle is X, therefor this civic that is pretty weak objectively is fine for me - no changes needed." on the other hand leads to one optimal strategy and many strategies that you can play if you don't care about optimal strategies.

 

[dturtle1]

Yeah, the value of each asset/mechanic should be based on its own merits. You should still endeavour to understand playstyles that asset/mechanic encourages to be able to grasp its full worth. You dont balance a game and then figure out the playstyle Strategies. Neither do you design the playstyles and then try and balance them. Rather it happens organically with one affecting the other.

 

[Ornen]

Did you forget scythia actually has horse archers ? And cavalry was a pretty decent unit in the industrial +. From what we've seen also ranged unit are rather weak. Making cavlry a good pick against it especially with the new movement rules.

What are the new movement rules? I haven't seen anything on em, but I'm hopeful they make cavalry a little more mobile in combat

Yes, Scythia has horse archers, and that card looks like a no-brainer for their bonuses. But expect to see policy bonuses that complement every civ in the game.

Industrial +? In my experience, cavalry gets shredded by artillery and gatlings

 

[KrikkitTwo]

New movement rules make all units Less mobile.

 

[Lucius_]

What are the new movement rules? I haven't seen anything on em, but I'm hopeful they make cavalry a little more mobile in combat

Yes, Scythia has horse archers, and that card looks like a no-brainer for their bonuses. But expect to see policy bonuses that complement every civ in the game.

Industrial +? In my experience, cavalry gets shredded by artillery and gatlings

Cavalry gets a little more mobile because other units get less mobile. You cannot move into a hill tile if you do not have two move points available, meaning infantry cannot move 1 and then attack a unit on a hill in the same turn. This makes cavalry units additional movement points more valuable.

Cavalry in the industrial are very useful as finishers, like all the earlier ones, but without the pike/spears that are prevalent in the earlier eras. The are great at picking off enemies from behind in defense and offensively they can flank and retreat. Siege units, including artillery, just get decimated by cavalry units, but yes you can't be leaving them in places where they can be retaliated against with multiple units. This is not to mention their ability to pillage, pillage, pillage to full health in a single turn. Of course, having charge promotion helps quite a bit to use them this way, 33% combat str vs damage units.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Yes, that's the end-result of a balance process that focuses on objective measures.

A balance-process that is lead by "My playstyle is X, therefor this civic that is pretty weak objectively is fine for me - no changes needed." on the other hand leads to one optimal strategy and many strategies that you can play if you don't care about optimal strategies.

Yeah I think if you balance/design so that there is a wide array of possibilities for the game, and then a lot more possible shades in the details, that just gives room for personal playstyle (and depth). If depth is really good there is room for personal playstyles, everybody has room to play their own personal way whether it is by making some special variations in strategic or tactical picks, it can be kinda small variations but overall painting a slightly different picture with a slightly different approach to win.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, if my playstyle is to stay small and wait until I'm being conquered, then a civic that gives me -100% production and -90% military strength may be far more valuable than any other Civic.

"Playstyles" should not be part of a discussion about balance. Balance should always be based on an as objective as possible point of view from players who are willing to give up their "personal style" in favor of playing the best possible strategies.

I've honestly never understood that sort of powergaming mentality. I guess some people enjoy it, but honestly number crunching sucks the joy out of anything, IMO.

 

[Ornen]

I've honestly never understood that sort of powergaming mentality. I guess some people enjoy it, but honestly number crunching sucks the joy out of anything, IMO.

Right, and there are plenty of different ways to play Civ. But a lot of hardcore devotees end up playing to win (or powergaming as you call it) rather than a looser 'play to see what happens' mindset. The problem with Civ5 is that it's so imbalanced that some major choices are significantly better than others. Ideally we'd have a game where all policy trees are equally viable, but it's pretty well covered that Tradition and Rationalism are by far the best, a few other trees are viable/helpful as well, and others are just bad choices if you're trying to win the game.

And it's not really number crunching once you get used to it. I don't have to know exactly how many beakers I'll get out of my NC to know that I should get one up by t100 at the very latest. I don't add up the yield of every workable tile when I put down a city, but I will size up the resources in each 'ring' of development, think about what other benefits I'll get out of the city and what it does for my empire. There's not much number crunching involved.

 

[Ryika]

I've honestly never understood that sort of powergaming mentality.

Doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do with "powergaming", it's just whether you're you okay with intentionally ignoring the best choices to play "thematically" or not. I personally am not, at least not when the "right" choice is obvious even without doing any theorycrafting. When I know I could be playing a strategy that is "50% better", then I feel like I'm gimping myself (because I am). Therefor I want as many strategies as possible as close to each other as possible when it comes to their power level, because that's when I feel I have the greatest freedom without the negative aftertaste of giving up tons of efficiency just for a thematic empire.

I guess some people enjoy it, but honestly number crunching sucks the joy out of anything, IMO.

Again, for me personally it's not even "number crunching". It's the obvious stuff that you just get a feel for after you've played a few dozen matches. Other people will care less, and some people will care even more.

In the end all groups benefit from a game that is as close to "objective balance" as possible.