If pursuing an immersive victory rathen a quick victory (for fun)

[casualplayer]

Everything about the game encourages you to be first, from meeting City-States to Settling to recruiting Great People. Second place frequently means you lose out entirely.

Also the AI is pursuing a victory condition of their own and you are just giving them more time to progress if you meander.

I do wish the AI could still concede in a war, unconditional surrender. I miss sharing maps and trading techs, although the AI would have to be made into a smarter trader. What I really miss is being able to steal territory and cities through cultural pressure. So basically an updated Civ IV.

 

[myclan]

As had been mentioned before, it is too important to be faster: faster swordman makes couquest eaiser, faster settler grants you more cities, faster building district means lower cost etc.

Of course it is right to award you for being faster, and I like it. To become faster you have to sacrifice some turn-based yield to get the one-time yield, like chopping/harvesting resource, again this is your strategic choice, I like the process of making important decision, but the problem is: the cost of being faster is too small.

In CivIII or cIV it is inevitable to die many units when conquering a civilization (unless they are far far behind), in CiV you don't need to die so many but the upgrading cost is high you have to build some new era unit. And in previous Civilization we have so many important buildings to be built to achieve a victory while in Civ6 they become much less attractive. Just compare a library in a new city and a research lab in a fully developed cities.

So we don't need to build so many new units to continue our war, and we gain less when a city is developed. Often I find out my cities don't have things that I really want to build. I don't need new units to win my war (maybe I can win the game several turn earlier but I don't care much). I can build a bank but the profit is just too low compared to the cost. I can build a research lab but I just feel it silly because I can gain more by building a library in a new cities with the same production.

So actually we don't need the turn-base yield so much because it is just of low efficiency.

Another example is like this:
The yield of one city:
Turn 1: Yield 1, Turn 2: Yield 2, Turn 3:Yield 3，Turn 4:Yield 4
This is my ideal model of a game, my city just becoming stronger and stronger finally I have won the game with it.
While the efficient yield of one city is like this:
Turn 1: Yield 1, Turn 2: Yield 3, Turn 3:Yield 1，Turn 4:Yield 0
I don't have so much to build so 1 yield of turn 3 is just enough, and in Turn 4 I had won my game so who care it is 0 yield.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Immersion" is a terrible framework on which to base a thread or design a game. People do not get immersed in games for the same reasons, or even have the same standards in the event that their reasons are otherwise similar. There is no such thing as an "immersive victory player", as the direct implication is that a min-maxer somehow can't get immersion from working to attain victory.

I suppose some people will grind out wins and not enjoy it for some reason, however this is not a 1:1 correlation with game approach or play style.

In regards to evaluating the game's mechanics and making optimized choices, Civ 6 is not significantly different from previous entries. You did better by making better choices in earlier games too, and for example high levels on Civ 4 were much more challenging than Civ 6 (less room for bad tech choices or worker actions to still win).

In 6 you can set the difficulty below prince, play basically any way you want, and still win. Still, it's worth pointing out that wanting to make demonstrably suboptimal choices from a gameplay perspective (intentionally!) and still win by game-defined victory conditions is a self-contradiction, not a coherent framework. You can make a case that for some mechanics, the optimal choice is too obvious/consistent however.

And in previous Civilization we have so many important buildings to be built to achieve a victory while in Civ6 they become much less attractive.

Buildings in Civ 4 did not cost maintenance like they do in newer iterations.

Despite that, many of them were situational and investing on them was objectively a mistake outside of those situations. I've watched players build them to a fault and lose the game as a result. How is this different than Civ 6?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Despite that, many of them were situational and investing on them was objectively a mistake outside of those situations. I've watched players build them to a fault and lose the game as a result. How is this different than Civ 6?

Well, two things. Civ 4 also suffered from a degree of bad design where building wealth was simply too good (and in fact better than building gold buildings). Then again, I guess situational is better than "always build" and "never build" for most of your buildings I'd assume.

For example, you'd not build many universities; but you'd care about building them in your best science cities in Civ 4. If you build a university in a 3 science city, that's your fault. In Civ 6 though, you just build universities wherever possible assuming you can build them in time because location doesn't matter due to flat yields. On the other hand, stuff like industrial zones and entertainment complexes are so weak that for the most part their very existence is a mistake.But Civ 6 is really bad in this aspect. The meta is pretty much build everything you need in the first 50-70 turns because everything takes too long to build afterwards due to scaling unit/district costs. So you have Agoge warrior/slinger spam and from there just upgrade to swords/muskets/infantry. Which also exists in 4 too, but you can also whip and draft and hard building doesn't take 10 years.


I guess the maintenance complaint comes from the fact that you could bankrupt yourself and thus lose the game instead of just getting a less efficient victory. It's rather hard to do so in this game though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, two things. Civ 4 also suffered from a degree of bad design where building wealth was simply too good (and in fact better than building gold buildings). Then again, I guess situational is better than "always build" and "never build" for most of your buildings I'd assume.

The wealth thing vs gold buildings was a bit unfortunate, but yes situational is best. I was responding to the claim that in previous civs "there were so many buildings to be built to achieve victory". That just wasn't reality. Just like now, some buildings were near always-make (like granary) while many weren't worth the investment.

The building maintenance wasn't a complaint on my part. I can take it or leave it; it's simply another piece of opportunity cost. If the building is your best option when considering opportunity cost, you build it regardless.

Release-day industrial zones were quite powerful, maybe they'll tweak those again.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The wealth thing vs gold buildings was a bit unfortunate, but yes situational is best. I was responding to the claim that in previous civs "there were so many buildings to be built to achieve victory". That just wasn't reality. Just like now, some buildings were near always-make (like granary) while many weren't worth the investment.

Not really disagreeing with that; your statement isn't wrong. Just wanted to point out that the problems in VI are more annoying than before. But true, a lot of cities I built in IV never saw more than a granary, if even. More advanced discussion even saw stuff like building Oxford to be a waste and that made me kinda sadface.

It's just more extreme here. I feel like the game is really easy if you follow the script, and you get bonked really hard for not following it, making the illusion of choice just not working.

The building maintenance wasn't a complaint on my part. I can take it or leave it; it's simply another piece of opportunity cost. If the building is your best option when considering opportunity cost, you build it regardless.

More of a psychological hit to me. It's why I absolutely resented Civ 5 for punishing you for doing anything (personalities for more cities, extreme maintenance costs, warmunger aka the worst thing to happen to the franchise) to the point I resent the presence of a great person I can't use yet costs several GPT. Civ 6 is much softer in this area and that is good.


Players like me dislike being "punished" even though in games like these , opportunity costs is a punishment too but it doesn't feel like that. The worst thing currently in this game is probably being unable to undo district placement even if you didn't start on it, and I reload the game in those cases.

 

[liv]

I am a bit worried about the kind of game you would make there Archon..... Too much pleasure can be bad for you.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don;'t know about that. I'm just not a fan of masochism.

It's the same reason why we had golden ages and not dark ages as was originally suggested.

 

[liv]

I am not sure that it is the same. Random "bad" like flooding or what ever it was in Civ3 was a bit bad but if it is something that you know and can predict and calculate it is not that problematic. If everything in the game was easy it would not be much of a game

 

[Archon_Wing]

If everything in the game was easy it would not be much of a game

Well, nobody was ever suggesting that either.

 

[Victoria]

An immersion game really should have 'victories' turned off and one would consider the game a victory when great pleasure was gained from the game and a loss when ones index finger starts to hurt too much.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not sure that it is the same. Random "bad" like flooding or what ever it was in Civ3 was a bit bad but if it is something that you know and can predict and calculate it is not that problematic. If everything in the game was easy it would not be much of a game

Random "bad" only works when it does have that counterplay and doesn't allow for losses outright on RNG alone. There are plenty of examples of decent RNG-based bad events in games, even in ones that also have poorly designed bad RNG at the same time.

The Civ 6 barb mechanic is a good example of both at the same time. If you get ruined by barbs 50+ turns into the game and it isn't a case of AI-scouted barbs attacking the player, there's nobody else to blame; you could have built units and screened against scouts. If you get scouted before turn 5 and flooded by barbs before you can even finish a 2nd unit, it's an example of bad RNG and broken-by-design. This latter example can alter the outcome of games with 0 player ability to offset significant damage. There are no choices to be made; you just have it happen occasionally and get a much slower start because reasons. You'll live the barbs, but your position will be much worse off. In PvP this is a travesty and has no place in any competitive setting, but it's pretty bad from a SP design perspective too.

Even beloved classics like MOO share this issue. Having an event that hits your capital hard very early on in that game could cost you dearly, and the damage/lack of counterplay was completely disproportionate to what the player can do in response later.

RNG can be done well or poorly with good and bad events. The distinguishing factor is whether the player can reasonably anticipate them and make choices regarding them that matter to the outcome.

 

[hollus]

Always expecting a stronger city in the late game, which means high pop and high output(mainly production, but usually including gold, science, culture, faith...), even if you know you are going to win, and that may be the original joy of "Just one more turn".
And here are some behaviour:
1.Do your best to grow cities until hitting the cap of housing, do your best to increase housing by building farm/neighbourhood even adopting special policy.
2.Build entertainment district just to satisfy your pop, try to trade for luxury resource just because don't want to see any unsatisfied. Be happy if your pop are happy.
3.Want turn based output instead of one-time output. So seldom chopping or harvesting, unless must build a district/wonder/mine on it.
4.Prefer to build a dstrict on desert/tundra rather than grassland/plain, seldom build on a hill. To maximum the usage of the tile around for you know flat desert can't provide anything.
5.Spend gold to buy a tile even in late game just to meet the demand of 5, or for the adjacency bouns, or just a high yield tile to enhance your cities ouput.

Sadly all behaviour above seem to be not efficient at all, for the cost rise so much in the later game, and you actually don't need to build so much if just want to achieve a win, which means one-time yield is far more important than turn-based yield. It seems really hard time for immersive victory player in Civ6 compared to previous CIV.

Have you considered a self-imposed 5-city challenge? Didn’t 5CC use to be a thing in past Civ games?

 

[Archon_Wing]

The thing is tall on a few cities could still be decent even if not optimal. Obviously it was harder, but it was still a very viable strat, and sometimes forced if you had a boxed in start. Tall civs in civ iv also had less maintenance issues due to distance and could tech faster though would fall behind eventually, at least it could be leveraged.

In Civ 6, it is simply not even an option. A wide empire does everything better so it is simply a contrivance for more challenge.

Even on a more basic level, the only thing a big city does better is hold more district and marginally better yields while wasting amenties.

And then if you try adding a commerce hub, a spy will just steal all your gold and you have to waste a spy defending it.

 

[Jaybe]

An immersion game really should have 'victories' turned off and one would consider the game a victory when great pleasure was gained from the game and a loss when ones index finger starts to hurt too much.

A true immersion game would include having each of the current victory conditions (other than conquest) just give additional lumps of score; not getting score, or possibly even the benefits, for captured wonders. Civ with the high score wins at the turn limit. To be confident of winning, you would want to achieve as many of the current victory conditions as possible. If you want a shorter game, reduce the number of turns at game setup.

Perhaps with R&F conquest/domination will become impractical and we can have a game where score has meaning.

 

[TheJokker]

After playing many, many conquest games I decided I wanted to play a less aggressive, more peaceful, game focusing on science. Playing as Germany I started on King with Island Plates with low sea level, abundant resources and maxed city states. This gave me a good head start and ample territory and I was able to comfortably win my science victory. Playing with these same settings I tried an Immortal game only to fall far behind with Rome acquiring AT crews in 1400 AD while I was still building knights.

I am currently playing the same settings only I have increased the map from small to standard and I have reduced the competing Civ's to 4 which would be the default number of civ's for a small map. I am now holding my own with regards to science. My point one can still play on the higher levels by using the advanced settings to minimize the AI's advantage while developing and learning new city management strategies. As my skill develops I will gradually increase more Civ's and by consequence the difficulty.

What I have loved about civilization is that each game is another story. Each new story teaches me new lessons to apply to the next story. I suppose I could apply somebody else's strategy and go for the fastest victory but I would miss out on what I enjoy most...

 

[Victoria]

What I have loved about civilization is that each game is another story. Each new story teaches me new lessons to apply to the next story. I suppose I could apply somebody else's strategy and go for the fastest victory but I would miss out on what I enjoy most...

Yes!
I played immersive for 6 months then agressive for 3. Now I play a mix. The thing is, it's about what you consider a good game. I'm playing what I call a fat game ATM, 10 cities pumped full of people. The trouble is amenities but I'm finding it fun. Also playing the GOTM but it's more stress to me than fun for some reason which in it's own way is enjoyable.

 

[Karpius]

What I have loved about civilization is that each game is another story. Each new story teaches me new lessons to apply to the next story. I suppose I could apply somebody else's strategy and go for the fastest victory but I would miss out on what I enjoy most...

I couldn't agree more! Each game is quite different largely because of the different conditions I choose at the start. Difficulty settings, map size, number of opponents and which civ I choose to play allow for a near inexhaustible variety of games to be enjoyed. I tend to create my own goals for each game rather than be bound to the official Victory Conditions.

I like a Pyramid style of play, where I start three or four "tall" cities, then expand a bit and allow the fringe cities to be helped along by the wealth of core cities. Then a bit more expansion on the same model. Of course, events and circumstances can influence much of this basic design in each game.

Speaking only for myself, part of the immersion into the game is not planning too far ahead. I try to put myself in the role of the leader at that specific moment and make choices based only on what is in front of me. I don't plan where to settle based on 'potential' resources that the people might not yet know about. When I am in the Ancient Era, I am not planning my districts based on the optimal future location of the IZ or Aerodrome. I don't build units based on what I can upgrade them to later.

Also, and I know I am well into the minority here, I much enjoy the late game after all the other goodies have been achieved or acquired. That is the point where all the civs are well established and building up for the big one. I like to keep each city ecstatic, which sometimes means trading for luxuries I just don't have in my own empire. Sometimes, this requires cold hard cash. At the same time, one must maintain a military that serves as a deterrent to those bordering civs that also would like certain resources not found in their own borders. Often, I choose not to ignore the religious pressure from other civs, which means I must remain prepared to send forth my own apostles and missionaries if only to hold off the others.

It can get to the point where there is no place left for a new settlement and the pressure on the borders begins to build and build. Will someone resort to the nuclear option? Will there be a cleansing as one conqueror chooses to raze old cities and build new?

There are as many endings as there are beginnings and I enjoy exploring all of them.

 

[Builderphile]

I find that what makes this game so replayable is the option to switch between a "win fast" approach (where the game is all about efficiency towards a type of victory) and an "immersion" approach (where the game is all about creating a great and "happy" empire).

After a few games of trying to get the fastest science victory possible, it is a nice change of pace to diversify districts, be diplomatic, and grow cities at the expense of a quick victory. Sometimes I will go epic/huge/max civs for that purpose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Winning at all, even winning quickly are not exclusive with immersion. Immersion is dependent on the player and individual preference. It is not an inherent property to once play style vs another.

There is no such thing as an "immersion approach" as a separate concept from "playing the game in a way the person playing it enjoys". Claiming an "immersion approach" is inherently different than trying to win is a wrong-assertion. It might be different, or it might not be, depending on the player.