Like-minded players for a more relaxed/'historical' form of Civ VI multiplayer?

[stiiknafuulia]

EDIT (07.11.): This thread is 'antique' now; please go here for the current affairs.

I guess this is an idea or suggestion, so I put it on this forum (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no multiplayer forum yet for Civ VI after all (this thread may be moved there after it's created).

Although it's a bit early to discuss this, since we know so little about the mechanics of Civ VI multiplayer (or even the game as a whole), I guess there's no harm in introducing the concept and getting to know if there's interest.

What am I blabbering on about? Well -- if you're like me, you like the idea of multiplayer (specifically human opponents in wars and diplomacy instead of the (semi)braindead AI). Yet multiplayer in most games tends to be about a fight for survival; use this tactic or this strategy, reach that tech by this turn or you're dead, bla bla bla. Afaik, Civ V was no exception to this rule, and it certainly applied in Civ IV.

I have no interest in such a cut-throat scenario (you may call me a bad player; you'd be right ), but would still like to enjoy the benefits of multiplayer in a more relaxed setting. Roleplaying nations in an alternate world history, if you will.

The exact ruleset will depend on how the game turns out, but I already have one concept thought out that's likely to be easy to implement. To make the game less about a paranoid struggle to survive, yet not eliminate warfare completely (as I do enjoy it in doses, and it is a part of rl history), I suggest limiting the number of conquered cities by government type. With the default government, you may conquer 1-2 cities from other players; this number will increase with more advanced governments. This way everyone gets to settle in and experience the game without getting eliminated in the very first phase. Later on an epic war of annihilation becomes a possibility, with the last tier of governments (Democracy/Communism/Fascism), so we won't miss out on epic warfare either, we must simply wait a little longer for it.

Sound reasonable? Exceptions to the rule could ofc be devised under certain conditions. What those conditions will be, though, will depend on how the whole casus belli system is implemented and whether it applies in multiplayer at all. Etc, etc. I just wanted to get the ball rolling, because I can't see myself enjoying multiplayer if it's all about warfare, at least not in the very beginning of the game. How many other players like me are out there, I wonder? To whom it matters little who finally wins the game, and a lot how we* get there?

(*Well, most of us; although there could be a rule to always leave 1 city to a player. You'd just play occ for the rest of the game, or maybe found a new secret empire in the Arctic. )

EDIT1: We have a Steam group for the game called 'Immersioneers'. Just send a friend request to its admin, Stroganov, to get added to the group so you'll be ready for our test games! Do take the time to also register on these forums and post in this thread, because the games will be organized and scheduled here (at least to begin with). And it's always nice to say hello as well.

EDIT2: The possibility of intermittent scoring has been raised as a further refinement of the original idea. We could score the different phases of the game intermittently (say, every 100 turns); thus, if you did well in the first phase of the game but were reduced to one city in the last (for example), you might still have a shot at winning. To attain a balance for this form of scoring is going to be a more difficult task than limiting the number of conquests, so I've suggested that we put it on hold for the time being. But it's worth mentioning here, because newcomers are welcome to develop this idea, even as it 'incubates' (so to speak).

NOTE: In order to spare newcomers from reading outdated info, I've edited this post with an evolved form of the original idea (which was to limit warfare by number of turns elapsed -- a gamey and inferior approach to the new one). As the thread continues to move along and the idea is further refined, I will continue to update this post. Eventually I'll make a new thread for the actual organizing of the test games. EDIT: The game-thread has been created!

EDIT3: Go to this thread to sign up for the test games! They will be held on either the 29th or 30th of October. We still need some more players for the second game; just post in the thread which Civ you'd like to play as (no duplicates, Scythia or Aztecs), and I'll add you on the list.

 

[Haig]

I would love a chilled out multiplayer game.

There could be alliances and embargos against players, maybe even a sort of "world congress" between the biggest empires.

I think it's a good idea that no one would be wiped completely out but could be left with a single city or under some sort of occupation.

I like this idea.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Good to see there's at least one player who's interested. This is a fairly quiet forum, so I expect it will take some time for people to find their way here. And as I said, it's a bit early to discuss the specific details. But I like your world congress idea. Afaik, the world congress won't be present in the game itself, at least not at release; so we could indeed replace it with a player-driven mechanic. Maybe the largest empires (based on land area and/or number of cities) would be calling the shots -- or everyone would get one vote, or something else. You'd have to make sure, though, that the congress can't just declare a war of general annihilation against some poor civ, as it's just that kind of experiences that tend to turn more relaxed players off from playing multiplayer. At a minimum, the target of such an action should have committed some major atrocities (which would be defined at the start of the game).

Also, while I do like the world congress idea, we must be careful that it doesn't become a monstrosity of bureaucracy that bogs down the game. I've seen some 'democracy games' in Civ IV (or was it III?) where every decision was subject to a vote of some kind, and the game took months or even years to finish! Ofc some people don't mind that, but I'd rather play quicker games. Depending on the rules and settings, a game like I have in mind could last anywhere from one evening to a week or two; hopefully the modes that are implemented in Civ VI for multiplayer will facilitate this (the devs have said there's even a mode for hour-long games, iirc. That's a little too short in my book, otoh.).

 

[Kid R]

If it works in multiplayer why not have these designated war periods in singleplayer too!? I think that would make a really interesting game mode, although probably making it even more straightforward to game the AIs. Espionage in the peaceful periods would become hugely important! I kind of wonder that a mod hasn't already done this?

 

[stiiknafuulia]

If it works in multiplayer why not have these designated war periods in singleplayer too!? I think that would make a really interesting game mode, although probably making it even more straightforward to game the AIs. Espionage in the peaceful periods would become hugely important! I kind of wonder that a mod hasn't already done this?

Outside of a very specific scenario (Aztec 'flower wars' perhaps?), it's a bit of a gamey mechanic. After all, irl, historically the strong have done what they could and the weak suffered what they must. In multiplayer, though, it's a tolerable obstruction since it enables more interesting gameplay than straightforward conquest (imo, and hopefully enough others).

Depending on how they implement it, though, the modern era in Civ VI could be very much like this. In particular, I think for Democracies to wage wars of conquest there should be either very specific circumstances or significant penalties for doing so.

If the penalty for surprise attacks is steep enough (e.g. all other players declaring war on the perpetrator), then maybe there isn't even a need for mandatory peace periods in the form of multiplayer that I've envisioned. The game will have to support this for it to work well enough, though; the casus belli system has been hinted at, but not showcased specifically so far, especially not during the later eras. When it will be, I'll be making comments in this thread as to how I see it affecting this particular form of play.

 

[Kid R]

Haha yes true, definitely gamey. But then it is a game! Always war/peace modes, one city challenge, disabling certain victory conditions, freaky map scripts - all unrealistic/gamey, but kind of fun even so

 

[stiiknafuulia]

To make it a bit less gamey, it could be ruled that you may declare one war and take one city in it during the ancient era; 2 cities during the classical era; etc (to be clear, the 'eras' would be indicated by turn numbers, as each player will progress at a different speed). Thus you'd have to weigh carefully where to take your one opportunity for violent expansion -- and whether it will be worth it to be perceived as an aggressor for the gain of only one or two cities. At the same time, the threat of war would loom on the horizon even from the very start -- but it would be a war that you could survive, even if end up severely handicapped as a result.

I realize that some civs that focus on early rushes are heavily disfavored by such a ruleset (even more so the 'mandatory peace period' kind of implementation) -- but them's the breaks. There's enough civs in the game to never use some of them, imo. Another option is to allow early warfare for such civs, but impose some other handicap (build only so many units, for example).

EDIT: To be clear, the specific ruleset will be ironed out in mutual discussion once we know more about the game. For now I'm just throwing ideas into the air, and seeing if others are interested in such a game-mode in the first place. Anyone is welcome to contribute to this thread, even if they've never played a Civ game before in their life.

 

[Stroganov]

Count me in. What's your steam name? We should create a group and get organised there.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Welcome, sir Stroganov (or ma'am, just in case)! To be honest, I hate everything about Steam except its function as a game library, so I'd rather discuss things on this forum. We can (and should) make a group on Steam once the rules have been somewhat fleshed out, ofc.

We still know very little about Civ VI multiplayer -- a worrying sign, imo, given how close we are to release. But after the 29th, we should get some more info, at least indirectly (I heard that multiplayer is disabled in the YouTubers' current build, but by observing enough single player, inferences about multiplayer can still be made).

One thing that was mentioned in another thread and which gave me some ideas is the possibility of intermittent scoring. We'd award points for various actions -- building wonders, amassing the most techs and/or civics, having the most cities, etc. There'd be periodic checks for these things -- perhaps to keep things simple and uncluttered, there could be just two of these: at the half-way point to the game's agreed ending turn, and at the very end. Thus if you were to e.g. spam wonders in the first half of the game, and then get crushed and reduced to 2 cities later on, you'd still have a shot at winning even after your later decline! In practice, this would be unlikely to happen; but the mere fact of it being possible would direct gameplay down different avenues than if it were not.

Ofc, this still doesn't fully mitigate the inherent problem in Civ when it comes to multiplayer: it pays to be rich. Having more land and power than other civs will lead to an even bigger lead, etc etc. So conceivably you could gather all kinds of scores at once, if you were to be dominant enough in the different aspects of the game. Other players teaming up against the leader(s), combined with the limited war mechanic that this thread is all about could be enough to mitigate this. We'll have to see and ofc play some test games.

This is already a long post, but it serves to illustrate a crucial point: while it's fun to toss a lot of ideas about, in the end we can't make the system too complex. It's no fun to spend more time remembering rules than actually playing (at least not to me, that is). New players who might otherwise be interested in this form of game may also be deterred by a 10-page ruleset. I will devise something short and sweet once we get some more info on the 29th.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Arrgh. Why doesn't it show outside this thread when I edit the thread title? I regret using the word 'casual' in the title, as it's become a by-word for dumbed-down ridiculousness. If a moderator sees this, feel free to edit the title of the thread to match that on the 'inside' of it.

Moderator Action: Done, but just FYI, it would have been done sooner if you just reported your own thread -- more moderators see reports, allowing quicker responses.

 

[RebelScum88]

This is a great idea. I've been lurking for a while for civ 5 mods and 6 news and this thread made me want to join.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Welcome to the thread! So, that makes five interested players so far (including myself). (Ofc there's no limit to the amount of players, once the rules are more developed, but I want to keep track of potential participants for test games.)

 

[RebelScum88]

I think if roleplaying is the primary goal of this group then the idea below could be a major theme of the rules:
Anarchy to Hierarchy
While different regions progress at different rates, the global trend is towards more organized government and more complex relationships between states. This leads to systems where more powerful states can exert diplomatic and economic pressures on smaller states to get their way, without having to invade. However, as states become more effective they can support larger standing armies and control larger areas.
In game terms i think this would be reflected by having no restrictions on warfare in the early game, but with limits on how many cities you can take at a time. We already mentioned an increasing number of cities being allowed above. I think this should increase until at least the modern era, when then one civ can wipe out another(except one city) But with that we could slowly have more institutions form as well, like the world Congress, formal alliances, economic sanctions, etc.

Basically I think periods of enforced peace will feel artificial, since diplomacy became more complex over time, as VI appears to capture in some respects. So while you could be aggressive early on, but you would only have small gains from any one civ. However I don't think city limits rule out early warmongering as a valid strategy, since if you have a strong army and lots of neighbors you could take one city from each. Of course it could just as easily result in you losing most of your cities to those people.

I realize I'm rambling some now lets see if I can simplify with examples:
Ancient World: Very anarchic, military powers can create large empires but have trouble holding them, little formal diplomacy

Post-Classical(post West Rome-fall of Constantinople): Military power is still primary, but there is more focus on legal succession, and more communication between states.

Early Modern (post Constantinople- 1800sh): Beginnings of modern states, with greater emphasis on territorial claims and the norm of sovereignty with Treaty of Westphalia

Late Modern(1800-present): Formal state system, with more powerful states regularly exerting non-military pressure on smaller states. diplomacy and the norm of casus belli are fully entrenched. Inter-governmental cooperation to avoid war becomes more normal as time goes on.

These dates are of course rough and very eurocentric, China has a totally different trajectory for instance, but thats to give an idea of my thoughts. I hope it was clarifying

 

[Stroganov]

Thanks for the warm welcome (and it's a a "sir" indeed).

My suggestion would be to start simple. I'm not a fan of complex rule sets, so for me the biggest benefit of a group like this is just the ability to bring 3-4 nice easy going individuals to bring a layer of depth to the game that AI can't match.

By easy going I mean people who sort of "role play" the game and don't want everyone to speed through their turns and min/max or use gamey tactics to just beeline to victory. It should still be competitive, of course, just in a nice and relaxed way.

By bringing together a few like-minded people it would also be easier to get organised and make sure we are able to agree on a time for a session, then save the game and pick it back up the next day or weekend.

In terms of rules, I think the multiplayer will let us correct any shortcoming of the game, but most importantly it will allow for more "options" in diplomacy as deals can be hashed out between players in a chat.

Personally, I can only play regularly on the weekends, but I don't mind playing for hours at a time. I don't really use Steam for anything other than a library of games, but the Group functionality would be very useful for something like this - everyone can see a calendar of events, see the list of members, rule sets, etc.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

@RebelScum88: I too prefer the approach of limiting the number of conquered cities, since it feels less gamey (if going by the 'designated peace/war period', the game might devolve into huge armies sitting on another player's borders, just waiting for the word 'GO!' ). As you've suggested, we could tie the permission for conquest to the adopted form of government, like so:

• Tier 1 (Chiefdom (default government)): You may conquer one city while in this government

• Tier 2 (Classical Republic/Oligarchy/Autocracy): You may conquer another three cities (4 total if you didn't conquer one while in Chiefdom)

• Tier 3 (Monarchy/Theocracy/Merchant Republic): You may conquer another four cities (8 total if no conquests so far)

• Tier 4 (Democracy/Communism/Fascism): You may conquer any number of cities (save one for each player )

This is for a Standard sized map (assuming Civ V map size; iirc, in Civ VI the standard size is supposed to be 30 % bigger, so we'll have to adjust the numbers upwards). If the numbers seem too small or big, we could refine the rule somewhat and make it apply per player, so that you can't all-out annihilate a particular player, but may nab a small bounty of cities from each player. It would be harder to keep track of, though. To start with, I prefer the simple approach of limiting the amount of total cities conquered, if we can reach an agreement on the appropriate numbers for each tier of government.

I've also realized that we should either play without any AIs, or the same rules should apply to them, as otherwise the players who started next to AIs would soon come to dominate the game with their huge amount of cities. Otoh, since the AIs will most likely found their cities in non-optimal places, their presence might become a hindrance to their human neighbours if identical rules were to be applied. Therefore I propose to disallow AIs entirely, and pick the map size accordingly. Ideally, imo, each player should have room for something like 5 cities even without any warfare.

EDIT: There is ofc the problem that a player might found defensive, trashy 'buffer cities' on their outer perimeter, so that a potential invader would have to conquer them before getting to their real core cities (or suffer the danger and annoyance of leaving those cities as unconquered thorns in their rear as they penetrate further into enemy territory). This will likely be possible in Civ VI, since there is no global happiness to hinder the founding of small 'utility' type of cities. I'm not sure what to do against this (it is a cowardly and gamey form of defense, imo -- one that we might well do without). We could make it so that size x cities can be razed without increasing the 'kill counter'; the 'x' would have to increase as the game goes on, though -- adding complexity to the rules for a very awkward reason. Any good ideas for a better rule are very welcome here.

EDIT2: As for the time of playing, weekends suit me best as well, although I may be able to play at other times. It might be best if someone who's already familiar with multiplayer on Steam would administer the Group that we'll create for this form of game; the Steam interface is such an abomination to me that I'd rather not learn yet another part of it. But I can do it ofc, if worst comes to worst and there is no volunteer for this task.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

It's worth noting here that I aim to make a Standard-sized world map for Civ VI asap (when the map editor comes out). Something similar to my world map for Civ V.

The reason why I mention it is that with the use of a static map, the influence of bad starting places can be almost eliminated from the equation. I will update the map according to the feedback and experience from our test games, until eventually most victories will be possible from most starting places. Ofc there may be some imbalances that can never be corrected, due to the nature of Civ VI itself (e.g. Japan and England may be harder to play because of a lack of space for enough districts). But I'd wager this is much less significant than, say, picking Rome and not having any Iron appear nearby.

Now ofc not everyone likes playing on a static map; I myself like to explore the unknown world every once in a while. And we might always use an option for a 'balanced start' (it existed in Civ V and I imagine it was used in most multiplayer games) on a random map. But then there's also the factor of historical flavor that comes from playing on a rl world map. I for one would greatly favor it for this reason alone. Feel free to state your preference, everyone. (Ofc there's room for both kinds of games, but the rules may well have to differ between them, so it's useful to know which map type is more popular to begin with.)

 

[RebelScum88]

I like the idea of tying conquest to government type, that makes a lot of sense and is tied to player achievement as well. I think there may be some use in tying certain diplomatic actions to government type too, like embargoes, but that may be too complicated.

Weekends are definitely best for me to play.
I personally like the idea of freeform play for most games, but I think it would be fun to use special maps for certain themed games. For example, two types of games i like to set up are Victorian Era games with the great powers of the time, and Ancient Mediterranean civs around a map of the region.

EDIT: Also I was wondering how city states should be treated: should they count towards conquests? should there be government form restrictions on how far away you could influence city states? I think this would make some sense. Maybe until monarchy/theocracy/merchant rep civs can only send envoys to city states they have direct connections to (ie there is no rival civ in between them and the city state)

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I'd forgotten all about City States (I'm not too fond of them as a mechanic, at least not in their Civ V incarnation)... I guess we could just ban their conquest altogether, as otherwise it will likely lead to imbalance (more so on random maps than on the world map). Iirc, Germany has a bonus towards conquering them; they'll just have to forego it, or we could give them permission to conquer one or two CSs (after adopting a tier 2 government, perhaps, to prevent them from snowballing too early on).

On my Civ V world map, I greatly reduced the power and importance, as well as (most importantly ) the 'traffic jam' factor of City States by deliberately placing them on remote islands and tundra/desert wastelands. We shall see if a similar procedure is in order for Civ VI as well. Imo, civilian units not stacking infinitely was a really hare-brained decision from the devs, and it looks like they're repeating it for Civ VI. If we'll agree to use a mod to allow it, we could have the CSs be a bit more accessible. FWIW, as I'm studying programming atm, I aim to learn how to make mods for Civ VI, so I might include such a feature in the map file, if it's at all possible (or we'll just use a mod that someone else had made; but that has a chance of breaking with updates).

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Count me in! I don't see why the rules can't be simple. Just have a mercy rule into effect that the player's last city can't be destroyed. Also whenever I have played casual games I remove all victory conditions to not feel forced down a path. Maybe just keep the Time victory.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Count me in!

I dunno about that. You're such an uncivilized guy, are you sure you're fit to play Civilization? (j/k ofc; welcome, player #6! )

I don't see why the rules can't be simple. Just have a mercy rule into effect that the player's last city can't be destroyed. Also whenever I have played casual games I remove all victory conditions to not feel forced down a path. Maybe just keep the Time victory.

I wouldn't outright *disable* the victories, even if they're not the main point of the game. That's a bit too casual for my taste. If anything, they provide structure for the narrative of the game ('As the vile Sumerian plagued our lands with his terrible pop-music and neon-dyed jeans, the spaceship of the Greater Scythian Fascist Empire was nearing its glorious completion...' ).

As for leaving just one city, imo that's a bit too drastic as the sole rule for the whole length of the game; if you get reduced to one city in the Ancient era, will most players have the fortitude to endure the rest of the millennia as a virtual non-entity? Unless the city that you get to keep is your capital, its yields will likely be too small for you to ever 'bounce back' from such a fate, so the later it is possible for this to occur, the better. Also, as the game wears on (as do the players), the stakes must necessarily rise, in order to hold people's interest. After you've gotten to experience most of the history of that particular game, a war of annihilation can be fun for even the loser (or at least far more tolerable). Besides, said war will then be properly epic in scope, because each participant will have a dozen modern and thriving cities (full of sheep-like heathens to baptize by nuclear fire ).

If my proposed limits for conquered cities seem too small, that's because they likely are; I'm still in a Civ V mindset where it's optimal to have very few cities. Those numbers may have to be adjusted upwards by up to 100 %. We'll have plenty of time to test different amounts of 'conquest lenience', until we find the numbers that are agreeable to most players.