[R&F] It's Been a Few Months, R&F Thoughts?

How Are You Liking R&F After a Few Months

  • Haven't had it very long yet

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • It's great! Blows vanilla away!

    Votes: 43 40.6%
  • It's fine. I'm pretty neutral towards it

    Votes: 52 49.1%
  • The game is actually worse now

    Votes: 8 7.5%

  • Total voters
    106
I don't mind some of the busy work and clicks. After all, no one is forcing you to keep moving those governors around.

Clicks to me are nothing compared to a game like Diablo 2. :)

I suppose what I meant with Civ 6 having too many clicks was specifically that Civ 6 has too many unnecessary clicks. Any junior programmer could do better with basic issues with the Civ 6 UI, including things like sorting cities by yield, choosing production for multiple cities at once, choosing cities to continue to generate certain units until told to stop. You know, things that Civ 4 did. Civ 4's UI wasn't even perfect either, but Civ 6 and Civ 5 are a regression compared to what Civ 4 offered.
 
I suppose what I meant with Civ 6 having too many clicks was specifically that Civ 6 has too many unnecessary clicks. Any junior programmer could do better with basic issues with the Civ 6 UI, including things like sorting cities by yield, choosing production for multiple cities at once, choosing cities to continue to generate certain units until told to stop. You know, things that Civ 4 did. Civ 4's UI wasn't even perfect either, but Civ 6 and Civ 5 are a regression compared to what Civ 4 offered.

For me, the unnecessary clicks are the ones that are needed to advance the game, but don't relate to interesting decisions. For which there are a lot after the early game.

Which is a bit ironic, because Ed Beach made it clear that one of his objectives for Civ 6 was to have all the decisions be interesting ones. He was opposed to automated scouting (and, I wouldn't be surprised, production queues), because instead he wanted the decision of where to explore to be an interesting one for the player. I think he was on the right track with that objective, but the end product has fallen short. In large part, that may be because an interesting decision for one player is a boring one for another. So you almost need more automation, not less, to recognize that different players will want to hand over different decisions for the game to make for them.

With some creativity, that could be handled in a way that makes it easy for a player to move in or out of the decision making process. Take trade, for example. Instead of flogging a resource to every AI every 30 turns, perhaps you could have a "Manage Trade" screen where you flag what items you want to trade, and which you're willing to trade, or identity what you want to trade for. Maybe even who you're willing to trade with and who you aren't. Then every 30 turns, your advisors bring you the best trade they're able to negotiate, and you accept it, or tell them "not yet" and they come back with another offer next turn, or you say "Let me get involved." This way you can shut off (if you want) the useless AI trade offers, which you'll never want to take without checking around first (unless you can't be bothered to check around, and just want to get on with the game).

Spies, similarly, could be flagged for defence, offence, select who you do or don't want to target, what types of missions you want your spies to run, etc. Then you can forget them, and have their missions just roll over to the next highest priority as completed. Or you can get involved micro-managing them if you want. Right now your choice is to have no spies at all or micro-manage, right down to the inane renewal every 8 turns of the Listening Post and Anti-Spy missions. (Like, seriously? Can't those just be "these are your orders until told otherwise"?)
 
Game is worse. Pretty much stopped playing after a few games of RnF. It added a lot of busy work without actually addressing any of the game play issues. Like pretty much everything else in this game there are A LOT of neat ideas but so very very poorly implemented. I'm basically just waiting to see if a new expansion comes out and fixes it or waiting for the next one.
 
It‘s the old optimization versus roleplaying debate. When I play civ, I want to experience a story, see my empire grow, fight heroic wars and colonizing far away continents. I don‘t really care about Spies then, especially if I have to renew their tasks every other turn. But some people do, they want to win and get the best out of what they are given at the start, and that‘s okay as well.

I like Trav’lling Canucks propsoal of your advisors coming to you with trade proposal. I can even imagine just putting your resources on the market and setting a price. Ideally though, such systems would take over in the later ages. Because at the start, - another example - I want to move my scout myself. Every tile I find may change my strategy a lot. Later on, when it‘s time to just reveal the other continent completely, I want to automate this.

Basically, the number of decisions should stay roughly equal throughout the game. Chosing a single thing to build on turn 1 here counts the same as setting up a complete build order in a newly built city at turn 100.

And that‘s not what R&F does. Instead it adds stuff. The Governors get more, they get promotions faster and you need to move them around more if you want to get the most out of it. The plaza also takes up one more thing to build in the already tight early ages. Loyalty is different. It is an additional system to be learned, but it feels logical and fits in. Emergencies on the other hand fail due to the AI not being capable of them, so I don‘t really experience them often. The diversity in civs I still like. So, it‘s a mixed bag and I hope civ 7 will roll around with a tilt in the storytelling direction (armies instead of units, a single diplomatic room instead of screens for every leader, more flexibility in favour of a balanced game, etc. ...)
 
Basically, the number of decisions should stay roughly equal throughout the game.

Strongly agree. The decisions in the mid- and late-game should differ from those in the early game, but they should have roughly the equivalent impact on the outcome of the game. Decisions below that impact level should have an easy method for automation, so those who don't want to bother themselves with the little details can easily eliminate the non-impactful decisions.

I think that would improve the experience for role-players and story tellers. You can spend your time dealing with the major plot points and big picture impact on the direction your civilization is going vis a vis it's neighbours and the time line.
 
Top Bottom