Leathaface
Emperor
I 100% agree with this, look at how much Vox Populi improved the Civ V AI. I hope there will be a 3rd expansion because that might explain the delay in the DLL source being released.
Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??
- Thread starter SxSnts9
- Start date
I 100% agree with this, look at how much Vox Populi improved the Civ V AI. I hope there will be a 3rd expansion because that might explain the delay in the DLL source being released.
Alucard648
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 91
Another hint - Statue of Zeus, the last wonder from 7 ancient wonders list, is still missing from Civ 6 wonder roster after what we know everything about wonders to be added in Gathering Storm expansion.
The only substantial hint I can see is the GS price tag. It's rather expensive, and it introduces leaders (expensive to make) and quite a few mechanics. If the $40 price tag is accepted, FXS can afterwards make a third expansion that is low on new mechanics (but hopefully tidies up what's there), but still adds 8 civs and sell it for $30. If people complain that's it's not a full expansion, FXS can claim that's why it's cheaper than GS...
We'll know in less than a year
Revolutions are long overdue. But it needs to be a mechanic that is not just negative and not triggers randomly. It needs to be a trade-off and a difficult strategic decision if you want to have a revolution at all, and if so, when.
Actually, EU4 has a nice idea how to do it (but it has a much narrower time frame). However, I don't think it works well with civ VI mechanics and would need to wait for the next game or a spin-off. It should be something like this: you go (deliberately) in a period of turmoil, and come out of it after some time with a new leader that has different bonuses, maybe even a different focus (much more on the late game) and UU, but you are unpopular with all other civs that haven't gone through a revolution yet. So going through a revolution successfully should be a very powerful path, but also very dangerous.
Alternatively (the "cheap version"), FXS could give us leaders that have two sets of abilities: one before the revolution and one afterwards. Those leaders have kind of a "revolution button" they can press at any point in the game through a certain action (pillage your own government plaza/capital or something like that). But it would be a missed opportunity to not give this feature to all civs, as the vast majority of civs with a longer history had revolutionary movements.
We'll know in less than a year
Revolutions are long overdue. But it needs to be a mechanic that is not just negative and not triggers randomly. It needs to be a trade-off and a difficult strategic decision if you want to have a revolution at all, and if so, when.
Actually, EU4 has a nice idea how to do it (but it has a much narrower time frame). However, I don't think it works well with civ VI mechanics and would need to wait for the next game or a spin-off. It should be something like this: you go (deliberately) in a period of turmoil, and come out of it after some time with a new leader that has different bonuses, maybe even a different focus (much more on the late game) and UU, but you are unpopular with all other civs that haven't gone through a revolution yet. So going through a revolution successfully should be a very powerful path, but also very dangerous.
Alternatively (the "cheap version"), FXS could give us leaders that have two sets of abilities: one before the revolution and one afterwards. Those leaders have kind of a "revolution button" they can press at any point in the game through a certain action (pillage your own government plaza/capital or something like that). But it would be a missed opportunity to not give this feature to all civs, as the vast majority of civs with a longer history had revolutionary movements.
Last edited:
I'd gladly take a less expensive expansion that would still give us 8 Civs and fewer mechanics as Gathering Storm seems to be covering up a lot that was missing. It would still be on par with R&F.The only substantial hint I can see is the GS price tag. It's rather expensive, and it introduces leaders (expensive to make) and quite a few mechanics. If the $40 price tag is accepted, FXS can afterwards make a third expansion that is low on new mechanics (but hopefully tidies up what's there), but still adds 8 civs and sell it for $30. If people complain that's it's not a full expansion, FXS can claim that's why it's cheaper than GS...
We'll know in less than a year
Revolutions are long overdue. But it needs to be a mechanic that is not just negative and not triggers randomly. It needs to be a trade-off and a difficult strategic decision if you want to have a revolution at all, and if so, when.
Actually, EU4 has a nice idea how to do it (but it has a much narrower time frame). However, I don't think it works well with civ VI mechanics and would need to wait for the next game or a spin-off. It should be something like this: you go (deliberately) in a period of turmoil, and come out of it after some time with a new leader that has different bonuses, maybe even a different focus (much more on the late game) and UU, but you are unpopular with all other civs that haven't gone through a revolution yet. So going through a revolution successfully should be a very powerful path, but also very dangerous.
Alternatively (the "cheap version"), FXS could give us leaders that have two sets of abilities: one before the revolution and one afterwards. Those leaders have kind of a "revolution button" they can press at any point in the game through a certain action (pillage your own government plaza/capital or something like that). But it would be a missed opportunity to not give this feature to all civs, as the vast majority of civs with a longer history had revolutionary movements.
I can see a Health and Immigration mechanics as coming and possibly bringing back Corporations. As for Revolutions, fixing the loyalty system would be nice too and make it feel more like there can be revolutions going on in your different cities.
It seems like there are still gaps in the units available, compared to CiV. Perhaps the 3rd expansion will fill those in as well.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
I don't know if there's room in the tech tree for proper balance, but I don't care. Can we please get something between the Musketman and Infantry for flavor alone? Ideally, we'd have both line infantry/fusiliers (~Napoleonic) and rifleman (~American Civil War), but I'd take either one at this point.
I'd probably prefer the former, which would allow the Redcoat and Garde Imperiale to have something to properly replace, though I suppose a rifleman would work just as well in the case of the Redcoat.
Line infantry would look so good with the field cannon and the new cuirassier unit (I just really like that period of warfare).
Last edited:
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
"Screwing around" is also gaming though, just as much as min-maxing/optimization. There are many different types of players who enjoy civ. Some want to win as quickly as possible, others want to role-play - there are several groups, I think there was a presentation about it for Civ 4.
The district system is a sign that the devs are looking into adding new facets to city building. Further changes though will probably have to be done in the next iteration.
Each game can be "solved" at one point or another. It's a matter of finding out the one optimal playing method and then using it. In civ I'd imagine that's building 2-3 core cities, pumping out a ton of units, then starting a war of conquest to grab what the AI has built up for you. Then using those cities, rinse and repeat. That's the best move. You get the lands that were planned out for another civ with all the resources that come by default, and on top of that you of course get developed cities and eliminate a rival. Once you have the land of 2-3 civs under your control you can do whatever you like.
The systems used to limit ICS in previous games were all too intrusive to me. I don't think it's the right way to go from my own perspective of fun. In Civ 5 tall was king, in Civ 6 now it's wide - though in GS there are nice possibilities now with Pingala and the governor system to make tall play better. I personally much prefer Civ 6's way of dealing with multiple cities to Civ 5's. And I prefer that we don't have to deal with things like corruption.
Players have to decide whether or not to follow the solved path, and how to have fun in the game. Nothing in Civ 6 is going to stop them from building a ton of cities as long as they've planned well, and I don't see that a bad thing in and of itself.
There's role-playing, min-maxing, going for victories that the civ isn't geared towards, and many more. There isn't a right or wrong way to enjoy the game. Yes the AI needs to be better and we should argue for that, but there will be natural limits to that too.
Civ6: Will to Power
1) Economic victory, also way more interesting than accumulating gold (too tired now to invent how)
2) Corporations (and their impact on Environment from GS)
3) Ideologies from BNW return! Lategame struggle of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
***Liberty - civ5 Freedom; capitalism, liberalism.
***Equality - civ5 Order; socialism, communism.
***Fraternity - civ5 Autocracy; nationalism, religion.
Ideologies are capable of every victory type, but in different ways.
4) Amenities, Loyalty, Ages and Ideologies are all integrated under Stability system.
Very low Stability can spawn Civil Wars of various kinds:
***Nationalist (may happen in anyvery unhappy city conquered by you at most 2 eras ago, wants to rejoin or reestablish its original civ)
***Religious (may happen in unhappy cities of different/mixed religion than your main, if succeeds it converts 100% of their pops to it and makes immune to reconversion for x amount of turns - but also happy and loyal... for x turns)
***Revolutionary (wants to enforce different government or ideology, then you cannot change it for x turns)
Other than civil wars, there are also peaceful protests which may force you to change Policies (again: without ability to remove for x turns).
5) DLL and proper World Builder released, AI made slightly less garbage
6) Portugal, Maya, Babylon, Byzantium, Ethiopia, Moors, Italy and Vietnam. So, now we have 50 civs in a game released in 25y anniversary of series.
1) Economic victory, also way more interesting than accumulating gold (too tired now to invent how)
2) Corporations (and their impact on Environment from GS)
3) Ideologies from BNW return! Lategame struggle of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
***Liberty - civ5 Freedom; capitalism, liberalism.
***Equality - civ5 Order; socialism, communism.
***Fraternity - civ5 Autocracy; nationalism, religion.
Ideologies are capable of every victory type, but in different ways.
4) Amenities, Loyalty, Ages and Ideologies are all integrated under Stability system.
Very low Stability can spawn Civil Wars of various kinds:
***Nationalist (may happen in anyvery unhappy city conquered by you at most 2 eras ago, wants to rejoin or reestablish its original civ)
***Religious (may happen in unhappy cities of different/mixed religion than your main, if succeeds it converts 100% of their pops to it and makes immune to reconversion for x amount of turns - but also happy and loyal... for x turns)
***Revolutionary (wants to enforce different government or ideology, then you cannot change it for x turns)
Other than civil wars, there are also peaceful protests which may force you to change Policies (again: without ability to remove for x turns).
5) DLL and proper World Builder released, AI made slightly less garbage
6) Portugal, Maya, Babylon, Byzantium, Ethiopia, Moors, Italy and Vietnam. So, now we have 50 civs in a game released in 25y anniversary of series.
Last edited:
Leathaface
Emperor
The video just upload on Civ's YouTube channel has the black death as a Scenario that comes with GS. Hopefully that doesn't lower the chance of a 3rd expansion
The video just upload on Civ's YouTube channel has the black death as a Scenario that comes with GS. Hopefully that doesn't lower the chance of a 3rd expansion
It shouldn't. That was my whole point. They were making a scenario based upon the black death as a way of testing it out before adding it into the full game as part of the 3rd expansion. I'm starting to feel more and more strongly that there will be a 3rd expansion. Let's hope for the best.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,843
The video just upload on Civ's YouTube channel has the black death as a Scenario that comes with GS. Hopefully that doesn't lower the chance of a 3rd expansion
yep that was known from almost the first release information
This seems to be the same exercise in equivocation that I've already rebutted.
"This pizza tastes like shoe leather! This restaurant should learn to cook better."
"Well, y'know, it's not really that important for food to taste good. Taste is so subjective. Heck, some people like the taste of leather--didja think of that? Some people eat their own shoes, and there's nothing wrong with that And while some people like to eat their pizzas, others like to duct-tape it to their feet and use them as snow-shoes. Others like to patch leaks in their tugboats with them. Eating a pizza just the optional, conventional, meta, house-strategy way to engage a pizza. There should be no standards in a world where everyone is just doing their own thing."
Prepare food with the rational assumption that it is to be eaten and should taste good. Design strategy games with the rational assumption that players seek meaningful choices for pursuing the provided endgame, which will hopefully be satisfying. An argument that amounts to pointing out that some people disregard the game's structure and choices for reasons that abuse terms like "role-playing" fails as a counter-point. The low standards of some segment of players in regards to strategic balance do not exonerate the designers for having a low standard.
Last edited:
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
There are some who play to relax after a long day of work and there are some who want to win at the Deity difficulty in the fewest turns (and actually being challenged).
There's a huge difference between blind Let's Plays and 100% Completion speedruns.
There's a huge difference between blind Let's Plays and 100% Completion speedruns.
Last edited:
PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
I mean the problem is that even setting flavor and fun aside, there are several different standards for judging the quality of a civ's design:
1. How well do they play in single player?
2. How well do they play in multiplayer?
3. How well do they function as an AI player?
4. How much ease of gameplay does a beginner civ offer newcomers?
5. How much challenge does an advanced or handicapped civ offer veterans?
6. How well does a base game civ illustrate the core mechanics of the game?
7. How well does a DLC civ utilize the new features of the expansion?
There are many ways that a civ can both succeed at some goals and fail at others, and that is totally fine. That's what balance patches are for.
So while I agree with you that opinions are really just impressions of fact with varying degrees of accuracy, I don't think it is quite as simple to sweepingly declare the balance in this game "good" or "bad." Georgia sucks, except when you're playing a pacifist run as someone else and share a continent with her, because she is literally the easiest leader to please and ally with. I consider Georgia to be an AI civ. I consider Phoenicia to be almost a scenario civ, adding a bit of extra challenge to the game if you want it.
Of course there are a few objective things we can point at and hope that they get balanced in the future. Fixing some AI bugs and blind spots. Making third tier district buildings relevant. Things like that. But overall with the increased number of moving parts I don't think Civ is bad at all.
If we were to take your food analogy, I would say that Civ VI pizza actually tastes fudging delicious. The flavor levels are off the charts. But as for edibility and serving its function as food...it's a little bloated and goopy and full of salt and saturated fats. Obviously not the best pizza you can imagine but it has its strengths and is definitely way better than 5 dollar cardboard pizza.
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
Your post:
- Didn't actually address a single point I brought up, instead is an attempt at putting words in my mouth
- Is yet another irrelevant analogy, going from books to food
- Doesn't indicate any specific complaints, just vague references deviating from your original incorrect use of the term ICS
There are plenty of meaningful decisions in the game and many ways to achieve victory. Expansion does have a meaningful cost, but it will naturally be very rewarding if you're able to do it. Using your pizza analogy, you're complaining that expanding in a 4x game is too rewarding. You're basically saying "hey this pepperoni pizza doesn't taste like chicken!" (wow I'm bad at coming up with these, I guess I'd better stick to actually discussing games).
Expansion is one of the 4 X's so it'll always be important and meaningful to do. Any rational person would expect that it would be rewarding in a 4X game. You might as well be complaining that exploring, exterminating or exploiting is rewarding too.
As I said before you went on about pizza, there will always be an optimal way to win games. And again in case its not clear, the designers want you to build more cities and are using cities as they keys to victory. Critiques can come about other elements, but not about how profitable it is to expand, as that is the core of any 4x game that doesn't specifically design a faction to benefit from not expanding.
Anyway I won't bother replying to your posts, as I've had enough "amusement" from your "analogies" that are basically poorly masked low-brow personal attacks instead of well thought-out replies. You're trying to put words in the mouths of people who reply to your posts to make them fit in your poor and irrelevant analogies, and using ridiculous extrapolations in these attempts. I'm only interested in discussions and debates with people actually interested in them as a means of reaching conclusions, and who are interested in civility.
It was my mistake to respond to your posts anyway as this is a thread about expansion hints.
Last edited:
Whenever refrains of subjectivism and relativism are tossed out to counter the notion that the pursuit of objective quality is some unachievable and benighted expectation, they always wind up going on the defense about how they are being straw-manned, having words put in their mouth, plied with red herrings, and so forth. What is actually happening is that the inchoate argument is being taken to its natural extent as a defense of low standards. It is merely contention without an anchoring counter-point, and your latest response exhibits more than a bit of peevishness, so I agree that your refrain was not a good use of your time. But either way, that's your prerogative.
It was not asserted that expansion shouldn't be a rewarding element. Rather, it's an overly rewarded element because it is not subject to any checks or balances of consequence. If you want specifics, they were already discussed earlier by myself and others. If a mechanism is important and meaningful, then it should have commensurate costs and considerations involved. Without ever having to ask yourself "should I do this right now", a game degenerates into a rote activity. Aaaand it's at this point where someone will invariably try to contend that degenerate, rote gameplay okay because some people are content to "role-play" or some other euphemism for contriving some exogenous means for amusing themselves. For bonus cash, they point out that some people like games to be unbalanced, because being over-rewarded feels good.
All right, granted, and so...? Is there a closing argument at the end intended to provide consolation for someone interested in playing a challenging strategy game that they hoped Firaxis would design for them? Designers should approach their games with the notion that it's okay that their game can slide by with an easily-solved game because players should just be expected to invent their own self-imposed structure? There is no right or wrong anything, because as long as one person likes something, that thing has validity? Quality is a vain pursuit because its definition requires unilateral agreement from all of humanity? Any extrapolation of the argument seems to lead to fruitless ends. Hearing some variation of this mantra so often, I feel ridiculous analogies are apropos.
As I like to say, Civ VI is sorely lacking as a game, but it is a highly addictive activity. Having tons of moving parts in a game with obvious unchecked paths to victory, coupled with an AI that doesn't know how to use most of those aforementioned parts, will not satisfy a desire for a historical 4X strategy game, but it will scratch the itch for Farmville writ large.
As for patches, I agree it's perfectly reasonable for a modern strategy game to an ongoing work in progress. But are we seeing any actual progress, or just more toys with which to distract us from the fact the AI won't, for instance, build or use aircraft? Not rhetorical, genuinely asking.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,128
whaoo I dunno if you got your snack stolen by a RP when you were young or what , but that's a lot of hate , not a very convincing one either. I feel like I'm back at reading homm forums.It's been a while I haven't seen a post where it would take hours to start unraveling all the false pretenses it contains.
So you didn't want burden yourself with discussion, but you didn't want just let it go, so you thought a quick snipe would be a good compromise?
This is hardly exemplary of positive behavior.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,128
y.
Moderator Action: Either participate in the discussion or move along. This is at best, Spam, and at worst, Trolling. Please stop. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
wilcoxchar
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 185
Bad analogy. It's more like "This pizza is deep dish and has sausage and oregano! This restaurant should only make thin crust margherita if it wants to call what it serves pizza!"
"Well you know, some people enjoy deep dish pizza. Taste is subjective, and there isn't only one correct way to make pizza."
There isn't a single correct way to game and trying to force your playstyle onto others as the "objective" only way to play isn't very constructive.
Similar threads
