I find that the worst aspect of most 4x games is the almost impossible to handle late game. Automatization works to a point, but only if your empire is running well enough so you can leave the AI take care of repetitive tasks (specially micromanaging). Distant Worlds is one of the best in this regard.
Note....G, I'm with you on your commitment to Instant Yields (agree to disagree). I'm just now talking for the heck of it, and sharing my thoughts about 4x games, not really trying to sell you on any points on this going forward.
Tu, I agree with you on the late game. The fundamental problem I think in many 4x games is handling the aftermath of expansion. 4x relies on this model of large numbers of concrete "things" to manage....cities in civ, planets in some space 4x games, etc. It works great in the early game as you expand your empire. But you get to a point where its just tedium. The issue is....there should be a mechanism to consolidate those holdings into smaller units. For example, combining cities into some kind of "metropolis" or even "state". Combining planets into a "federation". So at some point I'm managing 20 units...but then consolidate back to 10....allowing me to expand once again without worrying about tedium. I know Stellaris has a flavor of this idea, but it did not work very well early on, not sure how it looks today.
So instead we have seen the rise of the "Tall" model. In older Civ games, Tall was your one city challenge, it wasn't really a core part of the game. Expand is one of the Xs in 4x after all. Looking at Civ 4, Tall came about with the cultural victory (this may have happened in Civ 3, it was the one civ I never played). Its not that TALL was "good", but it became "acceptable" by offering a victory condition that a small civ could compete in. In Civ 4, expansion was still heavily encouraged, although it had a wonderful economic model that ensured you a pace to your expansion...but with the CV at least small civ had a shot. Then in Civ 5, Tall became a norm, even actually the "correct way to play" in normal Civ before VP helped to correct that.
I actually consider the TALL economic model a crutch. Its a big stick mechanic that says "you really shouldn't expand"....when the real problem is there is no late game system to consolidate your expansions so that you can then expand some more without feeling like your playing bureaucracy the game.
The other fundamental issue in most 4x games....there is no late game "shakeup" mechanic. Tu as you said, at some point in most games, you climb the hill, and once your at the top...there is no reason to keep playing. To me its not the hill climb mechanisms (early yields = better late game yields) that are the problem, its the lack of a "kick you off the hill" mechanic other than war. And that is why much of competitive Civ turns into a war game....its really the only game in town to deal with a runaway civ.
In real life, why did the Civ on top ever fall down? Disasters, plague, internal strife, apathy and decay. Sure sometimes by war, but often by the "**** happens" factor of real life. But most 4x games don't model that, and I think that's a big lack. Again, Stellaris tries some of that with its end game conditions, so its a step in the right direction. Civs 6 ideas of "emergencies" is a great one, we will have to see how it looks in practice.
